Historical continuities persist until the end:
the Rustumite Constitutional Convention is attended by Daniel Coffin's now grizzled son, Charlie, who had been adopted by the de Smets in "A Fair Exchange," and also by Coffin's granddaughter's husband's mother;
the Convention is addressed by Morris O'Malley, grandson of that Jack O'Malley who had salvaged equipment from the lowlands with Coffin in "My Own, My Native Land."
The Rustumites apply the term, "proletariat," to an undesirable, unemployable, dangerous social mass that must be prevented from coming into existence (!) whereas some of us on Earth apply that term to all those who work for a wage or salary, an economic class that has become the global majority in less than two hundred years.
The Convention had convened to devise a form of planetary government but we are told only the outcome of the impromptu debate about the approaching space fleet. Rustumite history will continue with:
a research program to find a biochemical or other treatment to enable all human beings to live in the denser atmosphere of the Rustumite lowlands;
the arrival, several decades hence, of the second fleet of immigrants from Earth.
For Poul Anderson's readers, the history of this timeline does continue but on another planet.
26 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
"Proletariat" can rightly be understood as having many bad meanings.
True, we only see the beginnings of that Rustumite Constitutional Convention. As more and more people became able to live in the lowlands, wealth and power would inevitably more and more be concentrated there. We don't know exactly what political arrangements were made.
It's possible the solution to the problem of how to enable humans who could not breath the lowlands atmosphere would be something analogous to what we see in THE GAME OF EMPIRE. Targovi, a Starkadian Tigery of Imhotep, came of a species whose native atmosphere resembles that of the Rustumite lowlands. Apparently, meditechnicians of the Empire devised "oxygills," devices which Tigeries could wear to breath Terran type atmospheres after a surgical procedure. These devices could be removed when Tigeries returned to the lowlands of Imhotep, so they could breath there.
Altho not mentioned I am assuming such devices, in reverse, were possible for humans as well. There would naturally be times when humans whose business took them to the Imhotepan lowlands for more than a few hours would prefer to use "reverse oxygills." More convenient and comfortable than a helmet and air pump.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Proletariat" can rightly be understood as meaning, in the present global economy, the majority of the human race. It was a minority in 1848.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The very word "proletariat" repels, disgusts, and sickens me. It always brings to mind how scum like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, the Castros, Pol Pot, and all their imitators and puppets used such sloganistic words to yell and demagogue their way to grabbing power and setting up totalitarian tyrannies.
"Proletariat" grates offensively in the ears of many, many, many Americans!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The very word, "proletariat," means wage-workers. I have emailed you a link to a Wikipedia article.
Poul Anderson put this word into his characters' dialogue and I have responded to it. I expected maybe some discussion of economic-political issues but not an over-the-top emotional reaction including words like "scum," "puppets," "sloganistic," "yell," "demagogue," "grates" etc. I have certainly learned something here.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have a right to feel anger and disgust at the barbaric cruelties of the fanatics I listed above. Regimes brutally trying to force square pegs into round holes!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not talking about those fanatics but about the meaning of a word.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but the almost instinctive reaction of many people like me on seeing Marxist terms like "proletariat" is to be reminded of the tyrants I listed. Monsters who used that word and others in absurdly exaggerated ways in the very midst of their brutalities.
Some words should just be jettisoned as useless--like "fascist."
Ad astra! Sean
There is an unfortunate tendency for words that meant some specific political ideology to get applied overly broadly so the word effectively means 'somebody I hate'.
Fascist isn't the only one. Communist & socialist get used that way a lot too.
If you want to be more specific, you probably need a paragraph to say 'this is what fascist means'.
Sean,
Political reactions should not be instinctive.
"Fascist" means pro-capitalist, anti-democratic, violent - and also racist IF there is a racial minority that can be scapegoated. "Fascist" is a very precise term to be distinguished both from "conservative" and from (only) "racist."
Paul.
There are plenty of right-wing movements. None of them are "Fascist" -- that's extinct.
Kaor, Jim, Paul, and Mr. Stirling!
Jim: As a general principle I agree with what you said. But the catastrophic and gruesome history of Marxist-Leninism since 1917 prevents such terminology from being completely empty of meaning. Esp. to people who made some effort to know that history. Meaning I don't think all "instinctive reactions" will be baseless.
Paul: I don't believe all "instinctive reactions" will be unjustified.
I have to disagree with you about "fascist," which these days is an empty cuss word. Moreover, if we are going to use that word, we should define it as Italians Fascists once did, which was just another brand of socialism. As Mussolini, at one time one of the leaders of the Italian Socialist Party defined it, Fascism was a corporatist ideology believing in the State absorbing "Capitalism," labor, agriculture, industry, etc., into a single body controlled by the State. Everybody would have a seat at the table, but the Duce and the Party would make the final decisions. As Mussolini declared, such a setup, if made effective, would inevitably be totalitarian, and meant to be totalitarian.
In theory, the Italian Fascist regime could have been as brutal as the USSR and Nazi Germany, but it wasn't, for many reasons. One probably being that the Fascists, and Mussolini himself, lacked the ruthless, driving fanaticism of a Lenin, Stalin, Hitler. Many other factors restrained the Fascists, such as the Church (many Fascists were still Christians and unwilling to persecute the Church) and the fact Mussolini was content to be technically the PM of the King of Italy.
No genuine, limited gov't, free enterprise conservative or moderate libertarian can rightly be called "fascists." The word "fascist" is best discarded.
Mr. Stirling: Exactly! True Fascism, of the Italian kind, is as dead as the Dodo bird, even in Italy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We speak at cross-purposes as ever. Limited government, free enterprise conservatives and modern libertarians are not what I call "fascist." I said what I meant by it. It does include Mussolini. The State absorbing "Capitalism" etc is not a brand of socialism. The latter means democratic workers' control for need, not profit.
Fascism is unfortunately used as a swear word - I have had to argue more than once that Margaret Thatcher was not a fascist - but this does not change the facts first that there are parties which are pro-capitalist, anti-democratic, violent and racist and secondly that they are now growing.
Sean.
Kaor, Paul!
I am going to continue to disagree with your preferred definition of "socialism," which has never existed in real life, real history. Socialism, wherever it has been tried, always turned out to be autocratic, one-party despotisms where politicians/bureaucrats incompetently try to run things from the top down. I prefer realism, not theorizing.
Also, the fact many workers of all kinds don't want socialism should complicate such theorizing. Best to discard failures like socialism.
Ad astra! Sean
I have seen the claim that post-Mao China is closer to Fascism-that-actually-works, than any other country has ever been.
It seems like a fairly plausible claim to me.
Sean,
Of course you are going to disagree! We are surely not under any illusion that we are going to agree?
It is not my preferred definition. It is what many people who call themselves socialists mean by socialism. I have met a lot of these people and read their books. These people exist. Socialism has not existed yet but can be built in future. Its industrial/technological basis and the necessary democratic ethos already exist. Socialism in this sense has not been tried many times already. Bureaucratic despotisms have called themselves "socialist" just as Inquisitors called themselves "Christian." I also prefer realism and am not merely theorizing. Despite all the setbacks, resistance and horrendous misconceptions and misunderstandings, the movement for a socialist alternative to present conflicts is still alive and active on a global scale.
Of course most workers most of the time neither understand nor want socialism. Of course that is one of the problems - the main problem!
Best to discard failures like that now outmoded economic competition which is intensifying the drive to war and destroying the environment.
But I ask every time: why do we keep repeating this? I get the impression that you cannot let go of it. I can and want to.
Paul.
Something that has never existed in the past can never exist in the future? We KNOW that that is not true. And sf is about CHANGE.
But this is more repetition.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Him: In a sense you are right as regards Maoist China, beginning with Teng's "reforms, starting around 1980. It could be fairly said, that by "pure" socialism in favor of a corporatist model giving some leeway to free enterprise, China started looking more like Fascist Italy in some ways. However, as Stirling has explained, this attempt at State controlled "capitalism" has passed the point of diminishing returns because it was never a true free enterprise economy due to lacking the requisite legal and political institutions.
Moreover, Maoist China, during and after Mao's lifetime, was always far more harshly totalitarian than the Italian Fascists ever dreamed of wanting to be. The secret police, with its rigid censorship merciless surveillance of everybody, prisons and forced labor camps, would have won the envy and admiration of Lenin and Stalin. Last, the regime has no hesitation using brute force to crush all opposition to the Party. I only need to cite examples like Tienanmen and the crushing of the Tibetans and Uighurs for that!
Paul: I know that the unrealistic and counterfactual definition of socialism is the one people who think as you do prefer to believe. I don't care about their books and theories because all that talk of democratic workers control of the means of producing/distributing goods and services has always meant in actuality bungling politicians and bureaucrats trying to run things from the top down. With all the usual corruption, waste, inefficiency, etc.
People like you keep talking about democratic workers control of the economy. How is that going to be done? Will some congress or parliament controlled by socialists pass decrees setting how many pairs of shoes will be made, how much wheat is to be grown, how much paper to be allocated for printing books, and so on and on for a myriad of goods. How can that be done if you refuse to be guided by the laws of supply and demand? You are still going to end with the mess we have seen from every socialist regime.
Disagree, many workers of all kinds know quite well socialism is a dead end.
The fact free enterprise works whenever it has been given a chance while socialism never has should tell you the latter is the one which is outmoded. The fact humans are innately prone to being competitive is another reason to support free enterprise it gives ambitious and able men an outlet for seeking status and profit in beneficial ways.
We have wars because human beings, acting thru tribes and nations, express that innate competitiveness by expanding as much as they can or to defend what they have. Or because belief in a fanatic faith or ideology drives them to being aggressive.
I agree SF is about examining possible or speculative changes. And many of those possible changes are not going to be good. In this context we see Anderson examining in two stories what he thought might happen if socialist regimes conquer the world: "The High Ones:" and "The Pugilist." You don't like these stories--but I believe them to be very prescient.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Continuing this disagreement repetitively at this length is absurd. What is the point? You should know by now what I will say in reply but you just stick to repeating the argument and do not seem to notice when I ask what is the point. You know that neither of us will change his opinion - at least not as a result of an exchange of this sort. My views can change and have changed over a longer period of time but not as a result of someone insisting on endlessly restating his disagreements! Please don't just say, "Discussion terminated." Please also acknowledge the absurdity of prolonging it like this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Agree, the discussion has to end. We have irreconcilable first principles.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. There is another problem. You have kept repeating yourself and have simply ignored points made earlier instead of responding to them. I have had to repeat, e.g., that I acknowledge that economic competition WAS necessary to develop technology but also that it will no longer be necessary to compete for wealth that is technologically produced and democratically controlled and that, while many will initially feel that their lives have become pointless, others will seize opportunities (God-given opportunities, if you want to call them that) to enjoy, enquire, explore etc. Potentially, liberation lies ahead of us.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We still have irreconcilable first principles.
It's not enough to concede "...economic competition WAS necessary to develop technology but also that it will no longer be necessary to compete for wealth that is technologically produced and democratically controlled."
Objections: how can any technology stay advanced if no one is allowed to make the innovations needed for continued advances or find investors willing to back them? The kind of set up you favor leads to stagnation or stasis.
Objection: I do not believe one bit that a "democratically controlled:" technology or economy will end as anything but a one one party bureaucratic autocracy where politicians/bureaucrats incompetently try to run things from the top down. Because that is exactly what we have seen from every socialist regime.
Moreover, I don't think you even understand "democracy," which is not some magical cure all for our ills. It's merely a form of gov't, when it works, for handling the problem of how to transfer power. A "democracy" which works is a system for channeling the craving for power into non-violent means of attaining office and power. It's a system where politicians agree to seek power by persuading people to vote for them, the winners being the ones who got the most votes--with the losers agreeing to accept that. Counting noses is better than just shooting one's way to power!
I remain skeptical about that "...enjoy enquire, explore, etc." because most human beings are not going to be philosophers, artists, aesthetes, etc. And many will want to explore of gaining something. We are far more likely to get what we see in "Quixote and the Windmill."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is enough.
Why should innovations not be allowed? Investors are people seeking profit. There will be no need for individual or corporate profit when wealth is abundant, collectively owned and democratically controlled - including control of innovations. That is neither stagnation nor stasis.
Moreover, I do understand "democracy." It is not a magical cure for all our ills. It takes places in trade unions and other organizations when members elect representatives and decide policies. It is not just a form of government for handling the transfer of power. Power is ability to coerce and I have discussed how society can do without means of coercion. There will be no "craving for power" when there are no longer instruments of coercion. Politicians will no longer seek power. People will collectively decide public policies. Of course those who lose a vote accept that and of course this is better than shooting but "shooting" implies guns. When cooperatively controlled production is for need, not profit, there will be no need to continue producing weapons of any kind.
Of course you remain skeptical. That goes without saying. I am showing that I can reply to everything that you say but am not trying to convince you of anything. You do not seem to understand this. We can go on forevermore with me expressing views and you remaining skeptical of them. That will make me reply yet again but will not make redouble any effort to convince you because I am not trying to do that.
People do not enjoy or explore etc? They do not all have to be philosophers etc. But people can and do change when society changes around them. "Quixote and the Windmill" describes a transitional period. Of course many people will feel useless if they are no longer employed as they were before but others will not and will seize new opportunities. But they will need to have collective control of the means of production which they do not have in "Quixote and the Windmill."
I insist that we now address the question that I raise every time: What is the point of repeating this argument almost word for word ad nauseam? You seem to be unable to let go of it. I can let go of it and now desperately want to.
Paul.
It takes place...
...will not make me redouble...
Kaor, Paul!
Because the kind of regime exercising a politically controlled technology/economy you favor will inevitably be opposed to anything that might shake or threaten the regime. Which is exactly what we see in STARFARERS after the Seladorians came to rule Earth. The regime started with advanced tech, but subtly discouraged further innovation, leading more and more to stagnation. I only need to cite real world attempts in the past, such as Ming Dynasty China or Tokugawa shogunate Japan, to permanently freeze a nation at a certain level, to show how that might happen again in the future. Which means I don't believe at all in the desirability/practicality of what you claim will happen "...when wealth is abundant, collectively owned and democratically controlled." No proof, no evidence, merely a hope.
I deny trade unions should hold the kind of power you advocate. It leads to nothing but them becoming corrupt, to becoming cartelized in a corporatist State of the kind we have seen in Mussolini's Italy or in the decadent Solar Commonwealth in Anderson's MIRKHEIM. And such politicized trade unions in the US are often notoriously corrupt, bullying, and treating politicians, mostly Democrats, as their lackeys.
It's because of the existence of States, with its monopoly of the means of violence, that made institutions of all kinds, including trade unions, even possible. We need States to restrain/control/penalize the innate human propensity for being violent, strife prone, quarrelsome. Which means I don't believe in fantasies like "When cooperatively controlled production is for need, not profit, there will be no need to continue producing weapons of any kind."
I do understand you are not trying to convince me--I am trying to explain why people like Anderson, Stirling, and myself don't believe you. And that we believe our views/arguments are supported by hard solid facts while yours are not.
Why should you object to "repeating"? These controversies can at lead at least to a clarifying of views.
Ad astra! Sean
This cannot continue!
Post a Comment