What? More Heinlein?

In one of his first “Future History” stories, “The Roads Must Roll“, RAH posits a rebellion of transportation workers who proclaim the “functionalist” revolution. As wiki observes, the rebellion “advances the idea that one’s status and level of material reward in a society must and should depend on the functions one performs for that society.”

Of course, we know that things don’t necessarily work out that way in real life — Kardashians, anyone? — and as Heinlein observes, society can fall apart in the absence of any one of a large number of labor specialties.The Heinleinian functionalist, however, it (surprise!) certain that his specialized labor is the keystone, and demands exaltation accordingly. That functionalist dream continues, and one way in which it persists is in the belief that a certain group of “top men” can effectively run a utopian world

This brings us to Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz, who argues that leftism is what happens when “intellectuals” attempt to claim the top of that functionalist pyramid:

In a society and polity based around state coercion, “intellectuals” have more power and status so intellectuals fantasize about changing contemporary society to one in which state coercion plays a much greater role. That is why leftists always argue for greater state involvement in every facet of life (except sex). The greater the power of the state, the greater the power of those who manipulate the state. All leftist ideology has been an ever-shifting set of rationalizations intended to persuade non-intellectuals to invest more power in the state and thereby elevate the power and status of the intellectuals.

Give it a look.

About profmondo

Dad, husband, mostly free individual, medievalist, writer, and drummer. "Gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche."
This entry was posted in Literature, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to What? More Heinlein?

  1. dave schutz says:

    Okay, here is my fave, from Starship Troopers:

    “The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority . . . other than through the tragic logic of history. The unique ‘poll tax’ that we must pay was unheard of. No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead — and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s