23 ms·

It's a good essay, in the narrow sense that it unequivocally identifies Asimov as a Communist and apologist for Stalin. This aspect of the Futurians is often m

It's a good essay, in the narrow sense that it unequivocally identifies Asimov as a Communist and apologist for Stalin. This aspect of the Futurians is often memory-holed, I thank you for bringing it to everyone's attention. His critique of the science fiction, that screens which watch you back is a poor prediction (because how on Earth could Google watch people at scale?!) is particularly hilarious, if a bit sad.

gtsop 6y ago
> it unequivocally identifies Asimov as a Communist and apologist for Stalin. Scroll to the bottom of the article. > His critique of the science fiction, that screens which watch you back is a poor prediction (because how on Earth could Google watch people at scale?!) is particularly hilarious, if a bit sad. > Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have placed everyone under non-human surveillance. I guess this answers it
- watwut 6y ago
  I think that last implication is more of Asimovs weakness then Orwels one. It is 2021 and we don't actually have those robots. We have cheap workers. It is also stretch - not making robots did not mean you are not able to imagine them. It means they are not necessary for story. Asimov was not too good with humans, which would be fine. But the idea that it must be robots is weakness of his critique.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> it unequivocally identifies Asimov as a Communist and apologist for Stalin It critiques 1984 for it's narrow focus on the Stalinist form of totalitarianism, but I see no actual apologia for Stalinism. (The closest is the acknowledgement of the role the USSR under Stalin played as an ally against the Nazis.) It does argue that 1984 misses the internal instability of totalitarianisms like Stalinism, which besame evident after 1984 was written. > His critique of the science fiction, that screens which watch you back is a poor prediction (because how on Earth could Google watch people at scale?!) is particularly hilarious, if a bit sad. The critique isn't of screens that watch you back, but of the failure of imagination of Orwell envisioning only screens by which a human watches you in real time rather than one that does so by some automated, scalable means.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "It does argue that 1984 misses the internal instability of totalitarianisms like Stalinism, which besame evident after 1984 was written." Instability compared to what? Stalin's USSR survived major natural disasters and wars, expanded its territory and the leader died in office. Multiple democracies in contemporary Europe were destroyed from the same influences. Only UK, Sweden and Switzerland could be said to be at least as stable as Stalinist USSR. I despise and hate Stalin, but his regime was fairly stable compared to contemporaries.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Instability compared to what? Instability compared to what Asimov sees as Orwell's perspective that Stalinism is impervious to internal erosion (including death of the leader.)
    - watwut 6y ago
      Communism survived Stalin death untouch. In fact, it became more stable as Stalin was driver of instability at the top.
      - narag 6y ago
        Also most of the people that could rebel had been killed already. Moreover, although the soviets fell, China is pretty much alive and kicking disidents forty years later.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Communism survived Stalin death untouch Soviet Communism survived, it did not survive unchanged. > it became more stable as Stalin was driver of instability at the top. Asimov would, based on the fairly explicit statements in the review on the topic, say that it got more stable precisely because it became less totalitarian. I’m not interested in arguing whether Asimov is right on this point, but it is indefensible to claim that his painting of Stalinism as tyranny that was explicitly repudiated as such by later Soviet Communism is an apologia for Stalinism.
Talanes 6y ago
He snidely denigrates socialism and communism constantly throughout. Is anything that talks about communism with any nuance apologism?

gtsop 6y ago

> it unequivocally identifies Asimov as a Communist and apologist for Stalin. Scroll to the bottom of the article. > His critique of the science fiction, that screens which watch you back is a poor prediction (because how on Earth could Google watch people at scale?!) is particularly hilarious, if a bit sad. > Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have placed everyone under non-human surveillance. I guess this answers it

watwut 6y ago
I think that last implication is more of Asimovs weakness then Orwels one. It is 2021 and we don't actually have those robots. We have cheap workers. It is also stretch - not making robots did not mean you are not able to imagine them. It means they are not necessary for story. Asimov was not too good with humans, which would be fine. But the idea that it must be robots is weakness of his critique.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> it unequivocally identifies Asimov as a Communist and apologist for Stalin It critiques 1984 for it's narrow focus on the Stalinist form of totalitarianism, but I see no actual apologia for Stalinism. (The closest is the acknowledgement of the role the USSR under Stalin played as an ally against the Nazis.) It does argue that 1984 misses the internal instability of totalitarianisms like Stalinism, which besame evident after 1984 was written. > His critique of the science fiction, that screens which watch you back is a poor prediction (because how on Earth could Google watch people at scale?!) is particularly hilarious, if a bit sad. The critique isn't of screens that watch you back, but of the failure of imagination of Orwell envisioning only screens by which a human watches you in real time rather than one that does so by some automated, scalable means.

inglor_cz 6y ago
"It does argue that 1984 misses the internal instability of totalitarianisms like Stalinism, which besame evident after 1984 was written." Instability compared to what? Stalin's USSR survived major natural disasters and wars, expanded its territory and the leader died in office. Multiple democracies in contemporary Europe were destroyed from the same influences. Only UK, Sweden and Switzerland could be said to be at least as stable as Stalinist USSR. I despise and hate Stalin, but his regime was fairly stable compared to contemporaries.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Instability compared to what? Instability compared to what Asimov sees as Orwell's perspective that Stalinism is impervious to internal erosion (including death of the leader.)
  - watwut 6y ago
    Communism survived Stalin death untouch. In fact, it became more stable as Stalin was driver of instability at the top.
    - narag 6y ago
      Also most of the people that could rebel had been killed already. Moreover, although the soviets fell, China is pretty much alive and kicking disidents forty years later.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Communism survived Stalin death untouch Soviet Communism survived, it did not survive unchanged. > it became more stable as Stalin was driver of instability at the top. Asimov would, based on the fairly explicit statements in the review on the topic, say that it got more stable precisely because it became less totalitarian. I’m not interested in arguing whether Asimov is right on this point, but it is indefensible to claim that his painting of Stalinism as tyranny that was explicitly repudiated as such by later Soviet Communism is an apologia for Stalinism.

Talanes 6y ago

He snidely denigrates socialism and communism constantly throughout. Is anything that talks about communism with any nuance apologism?