While I couldn't find a source to attribute the quote to, someone said "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." Now, that statement is pretty intense, but it does touch on an important point, which is that a society is only as good as the people in it. In The Ministry for the Future, Kim Stanley Robinson makes his stance well known through his intent behind the novel, that being our current system, and thus foundation for our society, isn't working. It isn't working for the many, and it isn't working for the place that gives us life, It's only working for the select few, and that needs to be fixed. Capitalism is left undefended in Robinson's writing, with him stating "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." However, his point is easily reinforced with the magnitude of the climate crisis facing us in the now-immediate future. Some may critique The Ministry for the Future as too radical, too sweeping, and too pessimistic, simply due to Robinson's frank description of our seemingly insurmountable challenge. Yet, the nature of climate change, global warming, and its imminent threats make slow and comfortable change impossible. After all, slow and comfortable change is what we have right now. And thus, Robinson's proposed solution is a reformation of our current economic system, and replacing it with an alternative founded in socialism, focusing on equality for all. The novel implicates the natural disparities caused by capitalism as the cause for the looming disasters we face, as capitalism causes the pursuit for what helps get more, rather than what helps the many. The critique of our economic system continues by addressing the vast disparity between those who have planted themselves firmly at the very top, and those who have left behind, not just in the United States, but additionally in non-western countries still stricken by poverty and wealth. Robinson proposes that significant, and rapid change, the uncomfortable kind, is what is necessary to stop the current progress towards our own undoing, while also making things significantly better, not for the few, but for the many.
Kim Stanley Robinson does make a profound statement saying, “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.” In a society where people constantly want to take for themselves, it can be difficult to see any real change occur. Robinson makes this known continually throughout the book. I agree that people may view Robinson’s work as too radical because it does seem urgent and apocalyptic. The urgency is needed though because in order to make any progress, there needs to be drastic measures taken. Otherwise, the book may not seem so crazy in a few years or decades. Whether this change can be achieved is unknown because the capitalist economy does not seem willing to slow down or create any real change. I think this is partly why Frank kidnapped Mary. Mary was a politician, who held some power to get the ball rolling. Mary could not get everyone to agree on any action to be taken though. Frank knew that the selfish mindset of society was going to cause the end of the world, so he kidnapped Mary in hopes of convinces her to stir change.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that while, as Robinson says “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism,” his solution could be perceived by opposition as one which would spell the end of capitalism: socialism. Robinson has clearly done his research, but a constant concern (and source of much pessimism throughout his book) is the inevitable gridlock resulting from clashing modes of thought. Oftentimes, the trend of “problem-solving” in politics (and general human endeavor) is in ‘after-the-fact’ solutions. It’s no secret that people will die, and Robinson spares no effort hiding this. Will political/economic change happen before scientific advancements (like the direct targeting of CO2 admissions as opposed to its sources)? Or will anything happen on time? It’s difficult to claim authority on the subject of “the future” without selecting an area of expertise, be it history, science, politics, or what have you, yet all of these predictions don’t imagine anything particularly new, and have to rely on logical cooperation from an outside area of expertise. I have to wonder, then, if Robinson is correct about “significant, rapid change” being necessary for the salvation of the human race. We might be able to argue the semantics of time – the discussion about climate change has been happening for decades, but that is a relatively short time compared to the age of most countries involved in this large-scale political discussion around it. The onset of innovation was rapid in the industrial age, and the same could be said of a solution which might arise in the face of, or after-the-fact… not that we should necessarily rely on it. I do not know if Robinson’s proposed solution will stand out from imaginary future ones.
ReplyDelete