With Asimov's Foundation Saga scheduled to be
on TV next year, his old stories are going to be getting fresh attention from a new generation of Sci Fi fans. Ten years ago I wrote a blog post called "
Asimov the Collectivist". Here I want to follow up with a look back at a 1976 article called "
Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION Novels: Historical Materialism Distorted into Cyclical Psycho-History" that was published in "
Science Fiction Studies" by
Charles Elkins.
In his article, Elkins explored the perceived similarity between
1) the "underlying concept" of Asimov's
Foundation Trilogy and
2) "
one of the main ingredients of Marxism—historical materialism".
"
Protest is when I say this does not please me. Resistance is when I ensure what does not please me occurs no more." -
Ulrike Meinhof
"
You say you want a revolution well, ... we all want to change the world, but when you talk about destruction ... you can count me out." -
the Beatles
"
[apartheid] can be tested by any unprejudiced person against the requirements of Christianity and morality, and it will be found to meet all those requirements." -
John Vorster
Why Now?
Why look back at
this old article from 1976 that was written by Dr. Elkins? I am feeling the sentiment of this old saying: "
The more things change, the more they stay the same".
When I was a kid in school during the 1970's, the horrors of the Vietnam war and the
Nixon presidency finally ended, but headlines were full of the often bloody on-going struggles for independence from colonial rule in Africa and acts of terrorism by radical groups such as the
Japanese Red Army and the
Red Army Faction. These events were being played out against the back-drop of the Cold War and a perceived struggle between free-market capitalism and a Marxist view that free-market capitalism must ultimately give way to socialism.
 |
| 2020 |
Here in the 2020 election cycle, one theme in the presidential election is being portrayed as a battle of reactionary supporters of free-market capitalism
versus reformers who want to repair the failings of the health care system in the United States. The would-be reformers are being vilified as "socialists".
This current battle over the future of health care is a part of a war that has been going on for centuries. In that war, the inevitable failures of capitalism continually spur reforms that often take the form of the next advances towards regulated capitalism and
social democracy. When the United States became a new nation, the free-market practice of buying and selling human slaves was practiced by "founding fathers" such as
Jefferson.
 |
"...the thick yellowish gray morning sky,
the fluorescent orange sunset,
and
the metallic taste and
eye-stinging character of the air..." source |
Eventually, slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment, but only after a horrible civil war had crushed the remaining slave states. The free-market banking industry was finally partially constrained in
1913 after
horrific economic failures of the free market. After the great depression, the drift towards social democracy took a big leap forward in the USA with the introduction of "
new deal" safety net systems like
social security. In the 1970s, pollution had become so bad and so damaging to human health that the
Environmental Protection Agency had to be empowered as a way to force capitalistic players like the oil and auto industries to clean up their acts.
Each of these "radical" economic and social reforms (and their associated taxes such as income tax and FICA) have been bitterly resisted by capitalistic reactionaries who resented any government-imposed constraints on their ability to exploit the free-market for profit. Some
profiteers within the for-profit health industry are going to vigorously resist health care reform each step of the way. For over 100 years, social reforms have been derided and resisted by raising fears over creeping socialism.
What does all this social/economic/political history have to do with
Isaac Asimov and some silly science fiction stories that were written back in the 1940s? The imaginary science foundation for the "greatest science fiction series of all time", Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, "
Psychohistory", has been linked to socialism and the materialistic view of history developed by the German philosopher Karl Marx.
Charles Elkins
Elkins was an English professor, first at Florida International University and later at Colorado State University. There is a special place in my heart for academics who have an interest in science fiction. When I arrived as a freshman for my university studies, I stumbled upon an English professor who was willing to teach young science nerds by constructing a freshman English course entirely around the reading of science fiction stories. My English professor introduced me to the fiction of
Jack Vance and for that I am eternally grateful.
When writing his article about "
Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION Novels", Elkins seems to have been struggling to understand the popularity of the Foundation Trilogy. I suspect that most English professors are connoisseurs of great literature, and I've never seen anyone, including Asimov, refer to his Foundation stories as being examples of great literature. However, the great popularity of a science fiction story that is not well-written (by conventional literary standards) can serve as a kind of puzzle: what is going on here? Why were Asimov's Foundation stories so popular?
 |
| Petrovichi memorial: Nazi atrocities (source) |
Sense of Wonder
For some insight into the popularity of Asimov's Foundation stories, Elkins turned to
Alva Rogers, a fan of science fiction who had literally written the book (
A Requiem For Astounding, 1964) on
Astounding magazine, the pulp magazine that had originally published Asimov's Foundation stories that were later re-packaged as the 3 novels of the Foundation Trilogy.
It can be argued that one of the defining features of the human species is our capacity to live our lives from the perspective of an observer who experiences a sense of wonder at the world we find ourselves in. The science fiction literary genre was custom made for "wonder junkies", people who crave stories about fantasy worlds of the imagination that can provoke the human sense of wonder. However,
science fiction is a special branch of fantasy story telling in which community members are intrigued by the transformative effect of science and technology on society and the human experience.
What is the "underlying concept" of the Foundation Trilogy? Elkins says that it is, "
a concept of history which is, in its grand sweep, similar to one of the main ingredients of Marxism—historical materialism".
The Foundation Trilogy began with 1) Asimov's interest in history and 2) Asimov's desire to sell stories to John Campbell, the editor of
Astounding. Asimov suggested to Campbell the idea of a science fiction story about the fall of a Galactic Empire (Asimov had read
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon). The Sci Fi hook for the story would be an imaginary science of the future,
Psychohistory, which after the unavoidable fall of galactic civilization could be used to guide Humanity towards a new future. The first Foundation story was published when Asimov was just 22 years old.
In 1971, Donald Wollheim published a book called
The Universe Makers in which he conjectured that Asimov's imaginary science of Psychohistory began with "the basic premise of Marx and Engles". For his 1976
analysis of the Foundation Trilogy, Elkins completely accepted the validity of Wollheim's conjecture.
However, in
Conversations with Isaac Asimov, there is "
An Interview With Isaac Asimov" by James E. Gunn. Gunn asked Asimov if he was thinking about Marx's theory of history when he created Psychohistory. In his reply to that question, Asimov stated plainly that he knew nothing about Marxism. Instead, Asimov suggests that Campbell's interest in
symbolic logic contributed to the creation of Psychohistory along with the fact that Asimov had studied
physical chemistry. Asimov explained that he had modeled his imaginary predictability of (future) history on the kinetic theory of gases.
In that interview with Gunn, Asimov further stated that while Wollheim had been interested in Marxism, he (Asimov) had not shared that interest.
If all you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail.
However, for his
1976 article, Elkins did not resist the temptation to construct a dossier listing every possible link between Asimov and Marxism. Elkins wrote, "
Asimov must have been aware of Soviet Marxism: his parents immigrated from Russia in 1923, six years after the October Revolution." However, Asimov's parents were both from families of business owners in a small village. They left Russia (with 3-year-old Isaac) soon after the establishment of the Soviet Union and just before a 1924 Soviet crackdown that would probably have prevented them (they were Jewish) from emigrating to America. There is no evidence that anyone in Asimov's family had any interest in Marxism.
Elkins wrote, "
Moreover, 1939, the year Asimov began writing his future history, was the year of the Soviet-Nazi Pact, and he has recalled how he was caught up in the events unfolding in Europe." This chronological comment on the origins of the Foundation stories is misleading. Asimov shared (with Campbell) his idea of a science fiction story about the fall of a Galactic Empire on August first, 1941. Campbell told Asimov that he wanted not simply a single story, but a series of stories about the Foundation. The first story in the Foundation series was published in 1942. Yes, by then, Asimov had for years been worried about the Nazis and their horrific policies. That had nothing to do with Marxism or events in the Soviet Union.
After insinuating that Asimov helped found the
Futurians as a group "
exclusively for those who were either actual members of the Communist Party or espoused the Party’s policies" (
source), Elkins wrote, "
To what degree Asimov was acquainted with Marxism at first hand is not of great import. He was certainly aware both of some of its slogans and of its power to arouse allegiance among intellectuals and crucially alter the tempo of world history."
Having devoted the first part of
his article to describing the literary shortcomings of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy and describing Psychohistory as constructed upon a warped view of Marx's attempt to devise a scientific view of history, Elkins finally voiced the thesis of his article, writing that it was Asimov's "
treatment of history as a 'science' above men, which accounts for the FOUNDATION TRILOGY's ideological fascination and evocativeness as well as for its ultimate intellectual and artistic bankruptcy."
Ideological Fascination
From this point in
Elkins' article, he explores his belief that the Foundation Trilogy is popular only because it contains part of the materialistic Marxist view of history, however, Elkins must devote the rest of the article to explaining that Asimov's Sci Fi story fails because it is based on only a "vulgar Marxist version of historical materialism", not
REAL Marxism™. According to Elkins, Asimov's view of the human future only provides readers with "
fatalism and complacency" in the face of "
a techno-bureaucratic elite" that will control the future of Humanity. In contrast, Elkins reminds us that in the case of
REAL Marxism™, "
it is the possibility that all men can ultimately comprehend those hidden and complex forces at work on them that gives Marxism its vision of hope".
In my view, this analysis of the Foundation Trilogy by Elkins seems misguided because he (Elkins) mistakes a science fictional thought experiment (Asimov at play with a fantastic "what if?" scenario) as being congruent with Asimov's beliefs about human nature and the fate of human societies. Pretending to be able to describe Asimov's personal beliefs, Elkins suggests that Asimov believes
* "
that mankind will not fundamentally change, that basic human drives are universal and eternal" and that is in opposition to the Marxist idea that people can learn about history and take control of their future. However, I don't think the fictional account of Hari Seldon's Psychohistory in the Foundation Trilogy provides us with any deep insights into Asimov's beliefs about human nature.
As a humanist, Asimov believed in the power of education. Through his writing, he worked tirelessly to educate people about history, environmentalism and science. Asimov lamented politicians who who were anti-intellectual and who used fear and bigotry to mobilize supporters. Also, Asimov later extended the original Foundation Trilogy. Asimov's Foundation Saga was a playground where Asimov could explore the logical implications of a silly idea that he and Campbell came up with in 1941, Asimov was still at play with those ideas at his death in 1992. I wish that Asimov had lived longer and written additional stories about his imagined future galaxy, past the events in
Foundation and Earth.
Marxist Science Fiction?
Having never read any of the historical philosophy of Marx, I'm in no position to analyze the relationships between Asimov's stated beliefs and the tenets of Marxism. I do know that Marx's friend,
Engles, was a born and practicing capitalist who became a social reformer, trying to better the lives of factory workers. Asimov himself grew up working in his family's store and he was a self-supporting business man himself through most of his adult life. I suspect that Marx would have understood and possibly agreed with this view: "
The human way of life has always been subject to drastic and more or
less irreversible change, usually (or, as I believe, always) mediated by
some advance in science and/or technology." -Isaac Asimov
1981
Asimov thought that science fiction, as a literature concerned with change, could play an important role in helping teach people to anticipate and deal with change. Writing about "The Influence of Science Fiction" in
1981, Asimov lamented regressive political drift and backsliding by people who seemed to want to return to 1955 rather than face the future.
I'd be interested to see a critique by Dr. Elkins of the
later Foundation books by Asimov that showed
Daneel the robot seemingly in control of the galaxy.
I feel that Asimov was a realist with respect to imagining the future. He had high hopes for the future of Humanity and he was not afraid to think in terms of we humans constructing intelligent machines that would be useful companions. In the end, Asimov died before he was able to extend his Foundation Saga beyond a final scene depicting the telepathic robot Daneel watching over the galaxy. That scene was science fiction, not some sort of prediction of the future. It is up to us to make our own future.
Relate Reading:
Marx on Machines
"
Elkins essay is an important one, but personally I think he’s way off base."
*Note:
John C. Wright came to the opposite conclusion.
An alternative to the views of Elkins is provided by
Jari Käkelä
Next: Can Nirutam provide a good starting point for the Exode Saga?
Let's be clear what Dr. Elkins said:
ReplyDelete"(Point)1. It is difficult to put one’s finger on precisely what element or elements so fascinate readers. From just about any formal perspective, THE FOUNDATION TRILOGY the foundation trilogy is seriously flawed. The characters are undifferentiated and one-dimensional. Stylistically, the novels are disasters, and Asimov’s ear for dialogue is simply atrocious. The characters speak with a monotonous rhythm and impoverished vocabulary characteristic"
Asimov was a hack.
I suspect that Asimov would have agreed with everything in the above comment. Here is what Asimov wrote when, after 30 years, in 1981 he went back and read the Foundations Trilogy: "I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did." With not much action in the stories and mostly just a bunch of thoughts and conversations he had to wonder: "Why did everyone want more of that stuff?" However, James Gunn had observed: "...the stories provide detective-story fascination with the permutations and reversal of ideas." Asimov went on to write additional Foundation novels with his usual lack of concern for "style" and what I would call a logical progression of ideas all of which originated with the Psychohistory plot gimmick back in 1941 and fascinated readers regardless of the style of writing.
Delete