Post by Erasmus on Jun 1, 2011 14:56:02 GMT -5
The 'Machines' thread reminded me of this 1974 classic from Ursula le Guin. Review: www.sfsite.com/01b/dis73.htm so I needn't repeat it here.
That quote sums my feelings up pretty well; yes contrast between Individual and Society is a necessary intellectual tool but ultimately, Society is constructed by and for Individuals and Individuals exist freely only through their relationships within Society. Robinson Crusoe was under too much pressure to survive for the luxury of individuality.
The novel addresses some of the issues that anarchic idealists ignored. One is the obvious point of starting anew as believers in the system without existing power structures to manipulate it. Another, that their new world is not particularly hospitable so developing it for the individual benefit that ultimately benefits the society is a personal priority. It is in fact a sort of agreed exile to the relief of both sides. Third is that Anarchism is enforced with totalitarian rigidity. Not even names are allowed to be owned personally: they are allocated in random combination.
To some extent, the contrasting Capitalist society is a straw man. It is a more credible straw man than anything by Ayn Rand, a socially 19th century USA with 20th century (Sarah Palin would not like it because she would not be allowed to vote) It is a nice place to live - as long as you are a well off man or married to one.
In 200 years of existence, individuals have come to take customs and attitudes for granted that nobody prevents them from questioning except themselves. Theoretically there is always the danger of witch-hunting because a society without laws has nothing to prevent development of unified prejudice except its own prejudices against restricting the freedom of others. Historically, societies of very limited law between equals have in fact broken down when one side feels strong enough to ignore the rules and So what can you and whose army going to do about it?
What le Guin really explores is how power and control can (and perhaps must) develop even in a rigid anarchism to stifle those who step over the boundaries that supposedly don't exist. Her political conclusion was always going to be obvious to anybody who knows her work, that for all its flaws, anarchism is the better ideal.
Her social conclusion is in keeping with Trotsky and Franklin, that Revolution must in a sense be continual. The real source of danger is complacency that allows stagnation and the weeds that find root there. It is not enough to feel that the organization must balance itself through a combination of competing and collaborating self-interests: it must be balanced by conscious belief in it.
In other words, by following his own individual star, Shevek is actually a better Odonian than those who condemn him for not conforming. Le Guin thus turns on its head the "I" versus "we" dichotomy of anti-communist critiques such as Ayn Rand's Anthem and Yevgeny Zamiatin's We: the creative "I" is not the ultimate subversion, but the ultimate fulfillment, of the communal "we." If this, like the understandings that motivate Shevek's final choice, doesn't entirely ring true, it may be due to the power and authenticity of Le Guin's earlier portrait of Shevek's isolation -- a truer statement about the shortcomings of communalism than she intended, perhaps, to make.
That quote sums my feelings up pretty well; yes contrast between Individual and Society is a necessary intellectual tool but ultimately, Society is constructed by and for Individuals and Individuals exist freely only through their relationships within Society. Robinson Crusoe was under too much pressure to survive for the luxury of individuality.
The novel addresses some of the issues that anarchic idealists ignored. One is the obvious point of starting anew as believers in the system without existing power structures to manipulate it. Another, that their new world is not particularly hospitable so developing it for the individual benefit that ultimately benefits the society is a personal priority. It is in fact a sort of agreed exile to the relief of both sides. Third is that Anarchism is enforced with totalitarian rigidity. Not even names are allowed to be owned personally: they are allocated in random combination.
To some extent, the contrasting Capitalist society is a straw man. It is a more credible straw man than anything by Ayn Rand, a socially 19th century USA with 20th century (Sarah Palin would not like it because she would not be allowed to vote) It is a nice place to live - as long as you are a well off man or married to one.
In 200 years of existence, individuals have come to take customs and attitudes for granted that nobody prevents them from questioning except themselves. Theoretically there is always the danger of witch-hunting because a society without laws has nothing to prevent development of unified prejudice except its own prejudices against restricting the freedom of others. Historically, societies of very limited law between equals have in fact broken down when one side feels strong enough to ignore the rules and So what can you and whose army going to do about it?
What le Guin really explores is how power and control can (and perhaps must) develop even in a rigid anarchism to stifle those who step over the boundaries that supposedly don't exist. Her political conclusion was always going to be obvious to anybody who knows her work, that for all its flaws, anarchism is the better ideal.
Her social conclusion is in keeping with Trotsky and Franklin, that Revolution must in a sense be continual. The real source of danger is complacency that allows stagnation and the weeds that find root there. It is not enough to feel that the organization must balance itself through a combination of competing and collaborating self-interests: it must be balanced by conscious belief in it.