Spooked By His Sci Fi, FBI Looked Into Asimov As Possible Communist Tipster

v3rgEz writes "By September 14, 1960, Isaac Asimov had been a professor of biochemistry at Boston University for 11 years, and his acclaimed "I, Robot" collection of short stories was on its seventh reprint. This was also the day someone not-so-subtly accused him of communist sympathies in a letter to J. Edgar Hoover. They ominously concluded that "Asimov may be quite all right. On the other hand . . . . ." The "tip off" wasn't given much credit, but it didn't matter since Asimov's science fiction writing alone was enough to warrant FBI monitoring, particularly as the FBI hunted for the mysterious ROBPROF, a communist informant embedded in American academia. MuckRock has Isaac Asimov's FBI files in full, and a write up of the more interesting bits."

Comments

Used to this yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

See this, then remember that the NSA is currently monitoring us all. Your phone is a gps tracker. They have access to your mail. They are reading your personal papers without a warrant (Google Drive). Orwell's vision of the future seems more accurate.

Re:Used to this yet?

[houstonbofh]

Yep. Today's NSA makes J. Edger look like an amateur.

Re:Used to this yet?

[meerling]

At least J.E.H. wore relatively clean panties and garters.

Re:Used to this yet?

[QRDeNameland]

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

If you have nothing to say, you have nothing to fear.

Re:Used to this yet?

[mi]

Yep. Today's NSA makes J. Edger look like an amateur.

Compared even to his contemporaries — on the other side of the Iron Curtain — he has always been an amateur. Same goes for the much-despised Joe McCarthy as well.

Maybe, a total of 200 people (Asimov not among them) have lost their jobs unjustly because of those two gentlemen. Compared to the roughly 20 million losing their freedom and lives in USSR due to Stalin's (and post-Stalin's) repressions, that is, well, incomparable.

Re:Used to this yet?

[camperdave]

Actually, If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to say.

Re:Used to this yet?

[phrostie]

there was a reason he wrote as Paul French

Re:Used to this yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is both correct and of limited use.

First of all, we'll never know how many people were intimidated into silence by Hoover. It is widely believed to be a lot, and Hoover himself was virtually untouchable because of the dirt he knew about and the dirty tactics he was willing to employ. Even the President would have thought twice (or more) before tackling J. Edgar.

Second, the U.S. set a higher standard for itself. The consequences of McCarthyism and Hoover were more disappointing and jarring because that stuff wasn't ever supposed to get as far, rise as high, or last as long as it did. The Soviet Union had little illusion about itself and the thuggery and repression there wasn't terribly surprising.

Third, calling some of the worst-behaving government insiders in U.S. 20th century history amateurs, isn't just inaccurate. It belittles the threat they held to freedom, democracy and human rights. If they were 'amateurs', why take them on? The people who risked careers, futures, safety and security, did their actions mean so little?

Re:Used to this yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck, today's NSA makes STASI seem like a bunch of rank amateurs by comparison.

Re:Used to this yet?

[shutdown -p now]

Stalin's political repressions have a direct death toll of roughly 1 million. When GB archives were declassified with the fall of the USSR, the numbers turned out to be quite a bit lower that people who were all hyped up by Solzhenitsyn expected them to be. For the period of 1921 to 1953, the records show:

Total convictions for political ("counterrevolutionary" - Article 58) crimes: 3,777,380
- sent to prison or gulag: 2,369,220
- executed: 642,980

Quite a few of those send to gulags have also died - which is also recorded in the 1 million total figure that is the consensus at the time.

Of course, this does not count famines like Holodomor, and various other policies which resulted in deaths. But those were not witch hunts for "enemies of the proletariat", which is the Soviet analog to the activities of Hoover and McCarthy.

You obviously still have a point - a million is still a very large number compared to a few hundred - but it's worth putting the correct figures in place, now that we know them.

Re:Used to this yet?

[gl4ss]

how are the people who cemented the rule of two extremely similar ruling parties which went on to go on crusades fighting around the world(with collateral damage ok'd even non-warfare areas of action) amateurs ? ?

why not just compare them to nazis then?

Re:Used to this yet?

[rtb61]

There is a good reason these kinds of activities are called witch hunts. All these kinds of purges have the same thing on common, those conservative stooges squatting in the background, did not target those who threatened the state, but they targeted anyone and everyone who threatened their power, who had something they wanted or who were targets of sexual abuse that refused.

That is the true driver for the huge numbers. Not the number of political dissidents but all those targets of political insiders to had access to the political mechanisms of abuse and use them to feed their own greed, ego and lusts. tens of thousands of conservative political insiders, with many victims. Don't make the mistake of not thinking they were political conservatives because they most definitely were as far as their own particular brand of politics was concerned.

Re:Used to this yet?

[mi]

All these kinds of purges have the same thing on common, those conservative stooges squatting in the background, did not target those who threatened the state

The single largest hit to the security of the USA was made the Communist couple, who stole the designs of the nuclear bomb — and handed them to Stalin.

Conservatives were absolutely right to be wary of Communists — the most murderous school of thought known to humanity with Hitler's peculiar brand of Fascism (itself a slightly different kind of Collectivism) being a distant second.

but they targeted anyone and everyone who threatened their power, who had something they wanted or who were targets of sexual abuse that refused.

Whatever misdeed you can throw at American government, something far worse was done by the Soviet (and Chinese) officials.

Sexual abuse, you say? That governor of Arkansas was not a Conservative — not by a long shot...

Re:Used to this yet?

[mi]

Quite a few of those send to gulags have also died - which is also recorded in the 1 million total figure that is the consensus at the time.

Compared to mere hundreds of Hover's and McCarthy's intimidated Americans, even the 2 million of dead Soviets remain, as I said, incomparable.

Of course, this does not count famines like Holodomor, and various other policies which resulted in deaths. But those were not witch hunts for "enemies of the proletariat", which is the Soviet analog to the activities of Hoover and McCarthy.

Oh, but Holodomor was deliberate. Russia's modern denials of that ring just as hollow as Turkey's denials of deliberate murder of Armenians at the end of the First World War. Ukrainian peasants — as well as those of the Russian ones, who lived in the fertile regions along Volga — were fairly well off and, unlike the proletariat, did have something to "lose besides their chains". Lenin was warning comrades about Ukrainian peasants in the early 1920-ies — in the next decade Stalin implemented his own "final solution".

It remains rather puzzling (and offensive) to me, that while no one would ever think of using swastika to promote anything German today, the red flag, red star, and hammer-and-sickle are considered "chic" and routinely used to promote vodkas (Russia has little else to offer for export).

Re:Used to this yet?

[mi]

why not just compare them to nazis then?

The number of victims prevents any such comparison... The number of own citizens perished in American "witch hunts" is, pretty much, zero.

Collectivist ideologies — Fascism and Communism (as well as Communism-light, otherwise known as Socialism) — don't value the Individual for much and would not hesitate to kill thousands and millions "for the greater good", while in America Individual still usually trumps the Collective and any attempts at mass-murder (or even mass incarceration) tend to fail.

So, in demolishing your ridiculous attempt to compare America to Nazis, we could stop right here. But I'll go on... The number of foreigners dead off American weaponry — in the 60 years from Korean War to the Iraq one — is well under 5 million, whereas just the USSR lost, by official figures, over 20 million dead to the Germans — in only 4 years.

Re:Used to this yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lenin was warning comrades about Ukrainian peasants in the early 1920-ies

You may have conveniently forgotten how Ukraine (Cossacks) was solidly anti-red and pro-white in the Russian civil war that followed bolshevik revolt. Cossacks had privileged with the Tsar and revolution killed that. And that 1917 revolt was not to "throw out the chains of capitalism". That revolt was in direct response to Tsar's usage of Russia's peasants as cannon fodder in the war with Germany. It was there to throw off absolute monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

Almost 4 million dead, 5 million wounded. In a war that had nothing to do with Russia.

People were pissed at the Tsar and Lenin with Trotsky was their way out. As for Stalin, he was to be not allowed to lead Russia, per Lenin's will that was conveniently modified and people-in-the-know murdered (including later Trotsky himself for saying that Stalin was not a communist but a monster).

People in Ukraine died because of 1 reason and 1 reason alone. Stalin hated Cossacks and wanted revenge and Ukraine pacified.

Stalin implemented his own "final solution"

I'd say that is insulting to the memory of people that died in concentration and death camps.

And my grandfather was almost shipped to one of concentration camps by a Ukrainian SS member. He said, you can interact with regular german army normally. But the volunteers for Ukrainian SS, they will kill you for fun and to impress their german SS peers (coincidentally, Cossacks have a long history fighting with Poles and they viewed Poles as an underclass, just like Nazis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Auxiliary_Police

It remains rather puzzling (and offensive) to me, that while no one would ever think of using swastika to promote anything German today, the red flag, red star, and hammer-and-sickle are considered "chic" and routinely used to promote vodkas

The red flag does not represent Stalin. It represents Russia at the time when it came out of its shell and became important on the world stage. This is another reason why so many people like Putin's politics despite his many shortcomings.

The swastika is a symbol that represents Nazis, not Germany. It was used in Germany by Nazis before it ever became part of the flag under Nazi rule.

And that is the difference you need to wrap your head around.

No one is putting "Uncle Joe" on vodka. Just like no one is putting Hitler or swastika on vodka or anything else.

Re:Used to this yet?

[shutdown -p now]

No one is putting "Uncle Joe" on vodka.

They do, actually.

Re:Used to this yet?

[TheP4st]

Just like no one is putting Hitler or swastika on vodka or anything else.

The Italian beer Birra Dala Storia have images of Hitler and Mussolini

Re:Used to this yet?

[gl4ss]

America Individual still usually trumps the Collective and any attempts at mass-murder (or even mass incarceration) tend to fail.

historically only because they weren't counted as americans if they were on the short end of the stick.. nazi logic was to not kill "true nazis", so that number is "zero" as well. countless people have perished in witch hunts in america, thanks to the justice system no doing it's job all that well(well over zero).

but the difference with hoover and mccarthur with hitler and his cronies was that they were _successful_ in establishing their chosen political parties to power and putting in a system where no contest for those can exist, so amateurs they were not - and they used massive surveillance apparatus to guarantee that by spying and intimidating everyone in position to cause "upheaval" or challenge to the system.

and funny that you are talking about individual freedoms in an article talking exactly about the big brother looming over fucking sci fi authors!

socialism tends to value the individual quite much - so far as to guarantee them healthcare and education no matter how much money their parents stole from the state. one party dictatorial single party systems not so much.

Re:Used to this yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can this the smaller gun excuse: yes, I shot someone with a 22, but other people are using 38's or 45's!
Or the child's excuse: yes, I ate a cookie from the cookie jar when I wasn't supposed to, but Tommy ate 3 cookies!

Pointing out a worse evil does not excuse evil.

Re:Used to this yet?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wow - just...wow! Is someone actually apologizing for Stalin? Sorry friend, somewhere along the line, you went wrong. You lost yourself. You are now in a place that nobody should be.

Re:Used to this yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Stalin's political repressions have a direct death toll of roughly 1 million. When GB archives were declassified with the fall of the USSR, the numbers turned

Revisionist rubbish. Just the opposite happened. Stalin was much more of a monster than was generally believed in the west. I love it how Stalin "only" executed 642,980 is considered OK. But the number is too long by a factor of 10 at least.

Re:Used to this yet?

[Mr. Slippery]

while in America Individual still usually trumps the Collective

Unless that individual was black. Or red. Or yellow.

(And just a hint: people will take you more seriously if you drop the capital letters from "Individual" and "Collective".)

your ridiculous attempt to compare America to Nazis

Hitler's "final solution" was modeled in part on American genocide of Native Americans. Nazi eugenics were inspired by American programs of segregation, sterilization, and murder.

Anyone who thinks comparing America to the Nazis is "ridiculous" is dangerously ignorant of history.

Re:Used to this yet?

[shutdown -p now]

Where in my message did you see me "apologizing for Stalin"? He was a bloody tyrant who killed a lot of people and messed up the country big time. That doesn't mean that we should ascribe to him something that he didn't do.

Re:Used to this yet?

[shutdown -p now]

The numbers that I have quoted come from NKVD archives. What is your source for the claim of "too long by a factor of 10 at least"?

By the way, nowhere in my post I have used the word "only", or said that it is "okay". I merely corrected the number cited by OP, because it was simply factually wrong.

Re:Used to this yet?

[mcgrew]

Yep. Today's NSA makes J. Edger look like an amateur.

From TFA:

When a trip to the local college library revealed that Asimov had been born in Petrovichi, U.S.S.R. just after the Revolution, he felt compelled to bring these findings to Hoover's attention.

The correspondent closed his letter ominously, âoeAsimov may be quite all right. On the other hand, . . . . .â

J. Edgar was cordial but dismissive. His assistants noted that this was not this particular correspondent's first not-so-hot tip, his last sent in 1957 âoeregarding the Russian Revolution of 1917.â The Director returned all correspondence with thanks and enclosed a few pamphlets on the subject of communism. Hoover drily noted to himself âoewe have no particular interest in his observations.â

Asimov was like my late friend Ralph Weibie. Ralph's parents emigrated from germany to Russia to escape WWI, where Ralph was born. They moved to the US when Ralph was three (same age as Asimov was when his parents moved here). Ralph was sent home on his first day of school because he spoke no English, only German.

He fought against the Germans in WWII (Ralph had some very amusing war stories). IIRC he held a clearance.

Hoover wasn't an idiot, the NSA just has better toys.

I've read an awful lot of Asimov, fiction and nonfiction, and nowhere that I saw (aside from his atheism and amusement at religion) that he was in any way sympathetic to the communists.

Well, maybe compared to Heinlein...

Re:Used to this yet?

[mcgrew]

in America Individual still usually trumps the Collective and any attempts at mass-murder (or even mass incarceration) tend to fail.

Why is it you far right libertarian nutballs are so often wrong about EVERYTHING?? Mas incarceration?? We have more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world, I'd say this is Incarceration Nation. We do have mass incorporation, dumbass. And half those people are political prisoners, there for nonviolent drug "crimes".

Re:Used to this yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalin's political repressions have a direct death toll of roughly 1 million. When GB archives were declassified with the fall of the USSR, the numbers turned out to be quite a bit lower that people who were all hyped up by Solzhenitsyn expected them to be. For the period of 1921 to 1953, the records show:

Total convictions for political ("counterrevolutionary" - Article 58) crimes: 3,777,380
- sent to prison or gulag: 2,369,220
- executed: 642,980

Quite a few of those send to gulags have also died - which is also recorded in the 1 million total figure that is the consensus at the time.

Of course, this does not count famines like Holodomor, and various other policies which resulted in deaths. But those were not witch hunts for "enemies of the proletariat", which is the Soviet analog to the activities of Hoover and McCarthy.

You obviously still have a point - a million is still a very large number compared to a few hundred - but it's worth putting the correct figures in place, now that we know them.

Is there a citation for this?
This just will not do. With Bush's war having put 100K-1mil+ (and still counting) Iraqi people in the ground, he is now on the same level as Stalin? We Americans are nothing like Stalin! Suggesting so is treason!
Bush either did it for fame (the "I'm a war president!!" interview) or for cronyism (Operation Iraqi Liberation) but at least Bush didn't screw his country economically!

Re:Used to this yet?

[shutdown -p now]

Is there a citation for this?

I don't know if translations of the original declassified documents (the so-called "Khrushev Special File") to English are readily available online, but you can find books that cite them, e.g. here.

Note that at the point the figures were compiled, it was a classified special report made on Kruschev's personal request by the Ministry of Interior to let him assess the scope of the then-existing gulag system and its application in Stalin's period, in his preparation to the denunciation of Stalin's cult of personality (which would happen two years later). So there's no reason to believe that the numbers were deliberately understated for propaganda purposes.

Re:Used to this yet?

[david_thornley]

For a series of six juveniles, while he kept writing other things as Isaac Asimov.

Re:Used to this yet?

[Sir Holo]

I think Stalin's numbers are a bit higher. He was a bigger monster than the H-man.

For example, 6.5 million Ukrainians died of starvation during a single winter, due to Stalin stealing all of their food for Mother Russia.

Oh, and he re-introduced serfdom in the 20th century. USSR, communist, LOL. Farmers were owned by the land. The workers in cities were the proletariat. Party members were above it all. That's three classes, not one.

Fun fact: Farmers that were "healthy-looking" were killed or sent to labor camps. That is, they killed the ones that were the most skilled at farming — 20% of them. How stupid is that? Also, look up Lysenko, an anti-Darwinian "scientist" that, due to Stalin keeping him close, was responsible for widespread famine and failure of other agricultural and forestry projects.

Even at the height of the Cold War, the USA was sending shiploads of grain to its arch-enemy USSR. Because America feared a "cold, hungry Russia."

Typos

[Princeofcups]

Typos in both headline and submission. Well done slashdot, well done.

Re:Typos

[Anonymous Coward]

It's timothy, what else would you expect?

All he does is drive traffic to the sites that allegedly pay him to do so.

Re:Typos

[OhANameWhatName]

Typos in both headline and submission. Well done slashdot, well done.

Bloody commies.

Re:Typos

[Anonymous Coward]

It's timothy, what else would you expect?

All he does is drive traffic to the sites that allegedly pay him to do so.

And only so long as there's an Australian connection.

Slashdot editors do so love Australia.

Re:Typos

[Anonymous Coward]

I see three versions of this submission at my feed. Selecting between the version without the preposition and identical versions with the preposition is a core activity of the slashdot experience.

Re:Typos

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as bad as Soulskill. If (or rather, when) I see another faux-outrage sensationalist bullshit story from him, I think I'm going to cry.

Re:Typos

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloddy Coomies

Same story, different time

[surfdaddy]

In those days, everybody was in danger of being a "Communist" and the government went crazy against civil liberties.

Today, it's all about being labeled a "Terrorist", and the government continues to go crazy against civil liberties -- only with much more ability to snoop.

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

Re:Same story, different time

[houstonbofh]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

As much as we let them get away with.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read stories like this, it's easy to imagine people from bygone eras to be not as educated or as informed as people are now, and this is why things like this occur. And then I'm reminded by the nightly news that human intelligence hasn't appreciably increased between now and then. Chances are that history is repeating itself today, and our descendants will eventually see some declassified documents about the stupdity of the current people in power. I wish there was a bug fix for stupidity and small mindedness.

Re:Same story, different time

[Russ1642]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

The simple answer is that you keep on electing complete fuckwits.

Re:Same story, different time

[Aguazul2]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

It has made so many enemies, it doesn't know where the next attack may come from. So universal surveillance is necessary. Maybe make less enemies next time?

Re:Same story, different time

[asmkm22]

Same thing that happens with any form of government. Freedoms and information begin to erode their grip on power (which is what the individuals in charge live for), and the government has to do what it can to limit the bleeding. Some governments will outright make the dissenters disappear, others just make sure that there are so many layers to the bureaucracy that nothing short of a concerted, long-term effort to bring about change will make a dent. Syria would be an example of the former, and the US (and many allies) the later.

Look back at any civilization throughout history and you'll see the same patterns. The tools may be different (money, oppression, religion, etc), but the results are always the same.

Re:Same story, different time

[donaggie03]

Nope, the simpler answer is that most Americans are completely ok with this shit.

Re:Same story, different time

[Joining Yet Again]

It's all in the name of fighting evil.

Unless you're on the other side, then you are the evil.

If you ever find yourself uttering:

"We are the free ones."
"We are the good ones."
"We are the peaceful ones."

Remember that you're saying exactly what the other team believe about themselves. And I'm sure you'll be able to explain how that's not true, and in fact you REALLY ARE the Chosen Team. Just like the other team will be able to explain that. But you're wrong. Because it's the same as it's always been, no matter which side you're on: man exploiting man, with the powerful minority fucking over everyone else.

And, if you're part of the powerful minority, you're the problem, and you're the cunt - no matter where you are. No, being part of "this team" doesn't mean that your power is more legitimate than if you were part of "that team".

Re:Same story, different time

[meerling]

Not really. It's either elect fuckwit A or fuckwit B, or don't vote for any of them and let some deluded idiot choose the fuckwit of the term.

Blaming the person caught in that trap since before they were even born, is rather insensitive.
(There are other things I would say, but I'm assuming you just really haven't thought about what's actually going on. Here's your chance.)

Re:Same story, different time

[Charliemopps]

everyone's a loser in a two party system

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering I've only been of voting age for the last 2 presidential terms I don't find "maybe next time" responses very useful. Those that have been around for decades won't be alive long enough to much practice whatever they may have learned.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the simpler answer is that most Americans are completely ok with this shit.

Of course history doesn't repeat; but it rhymes. IMHO we've nailed down that aspect of the 1950s. Most Americans didn't care who got blacklisted; but there were rumblings beneath the surface. The 50s had "the beat generation". So far all we have is "occupy" on the Left and Tea Party on the right. There hasn't been any really interesting literature coming from the Left, no Ginsberg or Keroac; but it's a bit early to tell, or it might be missing this time. Those guys had the GI bill that allowed them to persue writing. This generation is coming back from war with debt...

Re:Same story, different time

[intermodal]

I can tell you what isn't going on with this country: constitutional republic.

Re:Same story, different time

[steelfood]

People didn't read their history. Too busy playing sports or something I guess.

Re:Same story, different time

[Huge_UID]

Why is this moderated Funny instead of Insightful?

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

And then I'm reminded by the nightly news that human intelligence hasn't appreciably increased between now and then.

HUMINT may not have appreciably increased, but clearly ELINT, COMINT, and SIGINT have gotten better.

Re:Same story, different time

[OhANameWhatName]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

"Communist" and "Terrorist" are just labels used as excuses to exert control over the population because the leadership is fundamentally afraid of the populace. The Nixon tapes clearly demonstrate Nixon's paranoid fear. Other leaders share the same fear, though not the same paranoia hence there is no public demonstration of said fear. The new leadership (the wealthy business oligarchs) are afraid because if people recognized the level of control under which they live, they would likely revolt.

The US has taken and used the Nazi propaganda model of polarizing the population in opposition to something and using this for the benefit of the nation as a whole. It was during the second world war that the US discovered the productive power of focussing the populace on a common enemy. The NEOCONs have just taken this to a whle new level by controlling all forms of mass media and religious discussion in conjunction with political ideology. By controlling the information, the terms "communist", "terrorist", "pirate" and hosts of others can gain traction as a mechanism for the production of fear driving the populace to fight in common need for a goal suiting those promoting the fear.

Ignoring the harm this causes to the global view of the propagandists, you can say that the mechnism is a sound motivator. What has happened in modern America (which has happened countless times previously in failed dictatorships) is that the wealthy continue to accumulate unreasonable amounts of wealth at the expense of the poor. The poor rarely notice the problem until they're unemployed, lost their homes and are starving whilst being increasing oppressed by unreasonable regulations imposed by the leadership.

Re:Same story, different time

[ultranova]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

Well, I believe nurb432 below summed it up best in his tag (emphasis mine):

---- Booth was a patriot ---- If you dont agree with me, dont bother replying as i dont care what you have to say ----

Politics in USA are based on the idea that those who disagree can always leave and go West to find a new community that embraces their ideas, rather than trying to negotiate a compromise that everyone can live with. Well, they can't anymore since that pesky Pacific Ocean blocks the way. So now you have people who's mythology prices independence and individuality forced to live and work together. It worked somewhat as long as the Soviet Union provided a boogeyman of external threat, but now that it's gone and Al-Qaeda being too pathetic to provide a serious threat it's breaking down.

So, what's happening is that US is finally being forced to confront the fact it has no frontier anymore. It has no land that could be settled or virgin resources to be tapped for quick economic growth. This also means that most people will never be economically independent, no matter how hard or smart they work. The political machine is breaking down as its assumptions break, the budget circus being a symptom of that, and everyone who can is trying to grap as much power as possible to control the direction the country takes. And of course there's always the possibility that the union falls apart entirely, which is reason enough for the federal government to grab as much power as possible.

It's just the death struggles of the American Dream. We shall see what replaces it, and whether the country can avoid a slide to either dictatorship or break-up. It's not going to be easy, and depends on how much shared culture still exists between the states - and the Federal government isn't exactly helping by constantly wiping its metaphorical body opening with the US Constitution, thus illegitimazing itself and discrediting the document.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

Spare us the melodrama. The US federal government and state governments have a long history of suppressing the people. Usually to the benefit of monied interests. See Whiskey Rebellion, Ludlow Massacre, Homestead Strike, Great Railroad Strike.

The last ~100 years have been downright peaceful when you look at the previous ~100. Sure you have Kent St. and the 68 Democratic Convention riots in Chicago, amongst others. But the gap between violent assaults by government authorities in the US has widened quite a bit. From that perspective, things have gotten quite a bit better.

It would be great if people read a fucking history book once in a while. I'm not condoning the spying and paranoia, but this insistence that it used to be this utopia where the government was on our side 100% of the time and only recently has it gone sideways is fucking bizarre to me. The actions of the government today are no where near as vile as they have been in history.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

the correct answer is that most americans don't have a fucking clue or an ounce of common sense.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

It has made so many enemies, it doesn't know where the next attack may come from.

Even its allies are only so in the manner of those who put on a fake smile around the schoolyard bully in order to avoid getting beat up.

Re:Same story, different time

[Joining Yet Again]

The TP is just a sponsored parody of political protest, like Libertarians are a parody of classical libertarianism.

Re:Same story, different time

[roc97007]

> Remember that you're saying exactly what the other team believe about themselves.

Didn't the Nazi SS wear "Gott mit uns" on their uniforms?

Re:Same story, different time

[camperdave]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

As much as we let them get away with.

... or quite a lot more.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

No they aren't. The trust and happiness in the US government with all its people is at an all time low. Its less than 10%.

Gerrymandering is what makes them get away with it. People aren't happy with the government, they are happy with the guy they elected. Why? Because the election zones aren't random or geographically divided, they are divided in such way to group up people that vote alike.

I highly, very highly, if you ever take advice from a stranger on the internet to take this one and not the one that tells you to strip in front of your webcam, to read http://www.amazon.com/The-Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Politics/dp/1610391845 . It will help you understand the situation of why bad people are chosen over and over again pretty well. I won't claim its perfect, although I believe it explains politics very good and most likely correctly, but I am not sure.

Re:Same story, different time

[mi]

When you are at the top, your enemies are all around you. We have not done any wrong to the French, for example, but they hate us more than the Germans, whom we crushed (or helped crush) in two wars.

Why? Because of the envy... Oh, they'll never admit it, but their spoken explanations for derision towards the yanks don't hold much water...

Likewise, all the other critics criticize us for doing things, they would've done themselves, if they could.

When we are dethroned (by China?), the new "king of the hill" will have to watch its back from all directions...

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, not everyone. There's a reason for things to be like this. Follow the money.

Re:Same story, different time

[houghi]

You almost got it right. The minor mistake you (and many others) make is that you think in teams. In us and them. Left and right.
However the world is not just two things. It is not good vs. evil. It is not even all variations of gray. It is all colors combined.

You decide it is between the powerful minority vs. the powerless majority. By telling them THEY are the problem, you do exactly as you claim people should not do.

Those rich people ALSO believe they are the Chosen Team. And they are not even one team if you look closer to them as a group.

In the end, everybody is looking after his own ass.

Re:Same story, different time

[Joining Yet Again]

I'm saying that there is no distinction between people except in the amount of power they have.

Re:Same story, different time

[khallow]

This also means that most people will never be economically independent, no matter how hard or smart they work.

Depends what you mean by "economically independent"? If it means, you personally make everything you ever need, then it's not a particularly useful definition since even in the hunter/gatherer days, some reliance on others was necessary. If it means that you can do work in exchange for the things you want and need, then almost everyone can be economically independent.

Re:Same story, different time

[Guest316]

>We have not done any wrong to the French, for example, but they hate us more than the Germans, whom we crushed (or helped crush) in two wars.
No, "we" didn't. The USA of the 1940s did.

Re:Same story, different time

[HiThere]

Ah. That's clear. And wrong. It is the action you take that say who you are. Power is an amplifier. Justifications are trash. It's what you do. If you spy on everyone, they you're a "nosey parker with no regard for privacy", and I don't care *what* your justification is, it doesn't change who you are. If you're a cop that pulls over black drivers for being black, then you are a racist abusing power under the color of authority. Etc.

Some people are assholes, some aren't. There *is* a difference.

Re:Same story, different time

[Guest316]

One of my favorite stories was from when the House Un-American Activities Committee was investigating alleged Communist infiltration of Hollywood after WW2. Peter Lorre was one of those interviewed by investigators, and asked to name anyone he thought might be suspicious. True to his character, he started listing every person he'd ever met until the Committee'd finally had enough and dismissed him. Unfortunately, I doubt current investigators would have enough sense of humor to respond as mildly to a similar stunt.

Re:Same story, different time

[mi]

The USA of the 1940s did [wrong the French -mi].

By freeing them from German occupation in 1944? Indeed, such deeds are not soon forgiven...

Re:Same story, different time

[HiThere]

I challenge the assertion that "The US has taken and used the Nazi propaganda model of polarizing the population in opposition to something and using this for the benefit of the nation as a whole" I do not believe it to be a true statement. (Granted, the first part of the sentence is indeed correct.)

Re:Same story, different time

[HiThere]

I think a reasonable definition of "economically independent" would be that your economy doesn't depend on influence by the government. This is also something that only existed in history and myth, but it seems to be widely believed in, so it is a reasonable definition. (I don't think anyone believes, e.g., that Davy Crockett made his own rifle. OTOH, perhaps James Bowie did have his knife made by his brother. But do they believe that his brother dug the ore to make the steel? [Rural blacksmiths did that during the 1400's. Perhaps urban one's, too, but there weren't many cities.])

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

The same shit that's been going on for two centuries. Everyone living today seems to think it was always better in the past. But it wasn't.

Read the United States of Paranoia.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

When you climb to the top on other people's backs, your enemies are all around you.

FTFY

Re:Same story, different time

[Obfuscant]

A necktie is topologically equivalent to both a collar/leash and a noose. This cannot be a coincidence.

A doughnut is topologically equivalent to both a collar/leash and a noose. This cannot be a coincidence. And it is topologically equivalent to the cup of coffee you dunk it in. This certainly cannot be a coincidence.

And it is topologically equivalent to the hypothetical spherical cow. That probably is a coincidence.

Re:Same story, different time

[Joining Yet Again]

Can't spy on everyone without power.
Can't pull over black drivers for being black without power.

What matters is not what you fantasise about doing, but whether you have the power to do it.

Impotent assholes are irrelevant.

It'll always lead to the same thing: if you have the opportunity for power, do you wield it, or do you relinquish it?

Re:Same story, different time

[Guest316]

Seriously? You need me to hold your hand all the way through the quoted statement? OK, here:
>the Germans, whom we crushed (or helped crush)

Re:Same story, different time

[blahplusplus]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

The simple answer is that you keep on electing complete fuckwits.

Americans are complete fuckwits, americans are the most politically uninformed on the planet.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

Communism.

Re:Same story, different time

[russotto]

But the gap between violent assaults by government authorities in the US has widened quite a bit.

That's only because we've become a more obedient nation.

Re:Same story, different time

[ultranova]

Depends what you mean by "economically independent"?

You don't depend on anyone more than they depend on you, nor does anyone exert any real control over you - for example, you're a farmer and grow what you eat yourself, and trade your produce for what else you need. That was the original American Dream: that rather than being someone's servant, you could get land and work for yourself.

Later versions are variations of that, but it's only really a realistic dream in a rapidly expanding economy - in a slow-growing one, even if it was a perfect meritocracy, the fact is that most people are average and won't ever make the cut. The same goes for the US itself: just an average country, no more opportunities than anywhere else, no manifest destiny to chase. And that's a bitter pill to swallow.

If it means, you personally make everything you ever need, then it's not a particularly useful definition since even in the hunter/gatherer days, some reliance on others was necessary. If it means that you can do work in exchange for the things you want and need, then almost everyone can be economically independent.

An employee depends on their employer far more than the employer depends on any one employee. It is a relationship of subservience, where the employer dictates the terms and the employee has, at best, a chance to choose who to serve - and nowadays even that is getting unlikely, with the job market being what it is.

Re:Same story, different time

[mi]

Bear with me, kind sir — and spare some more words to avoid confusion...

Though we did crush the Germans, I was saying, we did nothing wrong to the French.

And yet, I was saying, the French, whom we helped, despise us more, than do the Germans, whom we fought.

That's what I said earlier. Now, if you disagree with any of it, please, reply — but kindly avoid the pronouns...

Re:Same story, different time

[TapeCutter]

Don't flatter yourselves, the French despise everyone.
Signed - The English.

Re:Same story, different time

[XcepticZP]

More importantly, 49% are always losers in any democratic system. Whether it is a two party system, or N party system.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are we the baddies?"

Re:Same story, different time

[gl4ss]

well, it's not like they have any chance at electing non complete fuckwits because the non fuckwits are under surveillance..

was there any reasonable author of written or spoken work who was NOT under surveillance(and surveillance is for taking some kind of action in case they do something drastic to make people actually do something) between 1950-2000*?

*) post 2000 they have had those and the other population under surveillance.. and still can't keep the illegal immigration in check! despite having records on them!

Re:Same story, different time

[gsslay]

No. That's just the English.

Re:Same story, different time

[gsslay]

Yeah, those French that helped you gain independence and gifted you the Statue of Liberty. A sure sign of hate. What? They are ancient history? So is two World Wars.

But don't worry, the activities of the NSA are fixing the German's opinion of the United States, real quick

The French don't hate Americans. They just aren't helplessly enamoured by them. Americans don't understand the difference.

Re:Same story, different time

[RabidReindeer]

A necktie is topologically equivalent to both a collar/leash and a noose.
This cannot be a coincidence.

A turkey is also the only animal I know of other than humans that has a necktie.

That cannot be a coincidence, either.

Re:Same story, different time

[RabidReindeer]

More importantly, 49% are always losers in any democratic system. Whether it is a two party system, or N party system.

In a nutshell, what's wrong with this country today. The idea that there can only be "winners" and "losers". Brought to its ultimate expression by the Tea Party.

In a democratic system, there exists this concept called compromise. You concede so that you can receive. Nobody gets everything that they want, but nobody gets totally obliterated either.

When it's strictly "win-or-lose" where there's nothing left for the loser, democracy itself is the loser.

Re:Same story, different time

[RabidReindeer]

The French don't hate Americans. They just aren't helplessly enamoured by them. Americans don't understand the difference.

'Murica! you either love us or you're hatin' us!

Re:Same story, different time

[RabidReindeer]

It's all in the name of fighting evil.

Unless you're on the other side, then you are the evil.

If you ever find yourself uttering:

"We are the free ones."
"We are the good ones."
"We are the peaceful ones."

Remember that you're saying exactly what the other team believe about themselves. And I'm sure you'll be able to explain how that's not true, and in fact you REALLY ARE the Chosen Team. Just like the other team will be able to explain that. But you're wrong. Because it's the same as it's always been, no matter which side you're on: man exploiting man, with the powerful minority fucking over everyone else.

And, if you're part of the powerful minority, you're the problem, and you're the cunt - no matter where you are. No, being part of "this team" doesn't mean that your power is more legitimate than if you were part of "that team".

"We are Good"
"We are Pure"
"We are Holy"

"They are Evil"
"They are Satan"
"They are Liars"

Quick - was that the USA or the Taliban?

Re:Same story, different time

[ixuzus]

So you don't view the raping, pillaging, and generally making an ass of yourselves as a problem? After all no Frenchman could have a problem with GIs bursting into his home at night demanding women or accosting "anything with a skirt" on the street could they? The French had a saying along the lines of with the Germans we camouflaged the men but with the Americans we had to hide the women.

Now don't get me wrong - the liberation of France was a tremendous thing and well worthy of gratitude from the French people despite the fact that they suffered horribly in the bombings leading up to Normandy. We can argue about whose army behaved more or less abominably but to claim that nothing wrong was done to the French is simply laughable.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't depend on anyone more than they depend on you, nor does anyone exert any real control over you - for example, you're a farmer and grow what you eat yourself, and trade your produce for what else you need. That was the original American Dream: that rather than being someone's servant, you could get land and work for yourself.

A quick wiki disagrees. The original American Dream was to keep expanding (westward, to the frontier) in pursuit of a better life. It's not just getting what you want, but pursuing (and getting) more and better things

It is the prospect that one can continuously improve through hard work. Whether you're "economically independent" while you work actually has little to do with it.

Slavery, for example, didn't contradict the American Dream (one reason why it lasted so long in the US): the slave was hardly economically independent, but that's ok since the slave can also work hard and improve his lot in life (from getting beaten by his master, to not getting beaten as he did good work)

Likewise, the employee being more dependent on the employer is acceptable and doesn't shatter the American Dream. If the employer can better his life doing it, then more power to the employer as he is chasing the American Dream.

The harsh reality is that the "American Dream" is not as noble and benevolent as most people think.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

And it is topologically equivalent to the hypothetical spherical cow.

No, it's not.
.
. /hint: nostrils

Re:Same story, different time

[camperdave]

And it is topologically equivalent to the hypothetical spherical cow.

No, it's not. . . /hint: nostrils

Yes, it's probably closer to a pretzel.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those French that helped you gain independence and gifted you the Statue of Liberty. A sure sign of hate. What? They are ancient history? So is two World Wars.

But don't worry, the activities of the NSA are fixing the German's opinion of the United States, real quick

The French don't hate Americans. They just aren't helplessly enamoured by them. Americans don't understand the difference.

And this right here is precisely the reason many French think Americans suck, not because "they hate us for our freedoms", but because we call things "freedom fries" (they're called "fried potatoes in French) and the average product of our educational system actually doesn't know we would have never won the Revolutionary War without French money, armamments, and iirc, a few admirals.

The typical American is just like the GP, spouting off about how "we saved your ass from the Nazis" or some other crap, while seemingly being utterly ignorant of all the times France has bailed the US' ass out of a kicking.

Incidentally, I lived in France for 6 months, they most certainly do not hate Americans, they dislike obnoxious people being loud, opinionated, and demanding they speak English to them without ever making an effort to speak French. When you're visiting a country you're basically visiting someone else's home, they've had all the "why our country is great" lessons in gradeschool about their country as you have had about yours. Try and act like a polite guest and you'll receive the same in turn.

Re:Same story, different time

[khallow]

Later versions are variations of that, but it's only really a realistic dream in a rapidly expanding economy - in a slow-growing one, even if it was a perfect meritocracy, the fact is that most people are average and won't ever make the cut. The same goes for the US itself: just an average country, no more opportunities than anywhere else, no manifest destiny to chase. And that's a bitter pill to swallow.

You don't have to "make the cut" in order to be economically independent or better yourself.

An employee depends on their employer far more than the employer depends on any one employee. It is a relationship of subservience, where the employer dictates the terms and the employee has, at best, a chance to choose who to serve - and nowadays even that is getting unlikely, with the job market being what it is.

So what? All I see here is a bunch of excuses and the same zero sum game thinking that has screwed up so much of the developed world.

Keep in mind that developed world labor is several times more expensive than developing world labor. For a lot of industries, that's good enough reason to move the industry to the cheaper labor. All those newcomers are getting the American dream.

Rather than deal with this problem by improving the value of labor, the US and other developed world countries have set up a bunch of counterproductive policies to try to protect the labor that they have. These generally have the features of making labor more expensive and harder to use while increasing the power of large businesses (who can both navigate more effectively the sea of regulation and bribe appropriate politicians to get favorable regulation passed).

Frankly, a society which doesn't offer me opportunities for growth or allows me the freedom to do my own thing, just isn't that much value to me. Most societies can offer roads, police, and fire protection. The US's special thing was that it was a place where you could improve your lot in life.

I don't consider the "American dream" a myth as much as a goal to work towards. And it is on this point, that I find myself in agreement. If there is no longer worthy society-wide goals to work towards and no longer any notable benefit to being part of a larger union, then why do it? One can't rule out a break up of the US, should the reason present itself.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? All I see here is a bunch of excuses and the same zero sum game thinking that has screwed up so much of the developed world.

Incorrect. "We can print more money! We can always grow the pie later!" is the popular non-zero sum thinking of the Keynesian loving left that has caused much of the problems of the developed world.

If people actually believed the pie is fixed, there would be more support for austerity and balancing the budget.

Keep in mind that developed world labor is several times more expensive than developing world labor. For a lot of industries, that's good enough reason to move the industry to the cheaper labor. All those newcomers are getting the American dream.

Actually, those newcomers are not getting the American Dream. They're getting bread and circuses, trickled down by the owners at the top. The owners are the ones getting the American Dream, most of them the same ones who got it in the developed world, while the rest became the current struggling developed world labor.

If those job creators ever leave China (I don't mean that derisively, they are the ones creating those jobs), most of those newcomers today will end up in the same situation as developed world labor.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Fight Club and V for Vendetta left or right? I would say those were both some interesting and influential pieces of modern literature. I also think The Matrix could be added to the list for opening the eyes of the people to Descart's philosophies, but I'm sure doing that would lead to a bunch of bitching about the conflation of movies and 'real' literature.

--
Burton Samograd

Re:Same story, different time

[cffrost]

What the FUCK is going on with this country?

It has made so many enemies, it doesn't know where the next attack may come from. So universal surveillance is necessary. Maybe make less enemies next time?

No kidding.

Re:Same story, different time

[Anonymous Coward]

Anne Wilson Schaef puts this down to the white male system, a.k.a the addictive society, and says that a feature of its memes is that it always needs something to be the Other.

If it can't find an Other, it will invent one.

This converges with Orwell's concept of perpetual war or perpetual threat of war.

That's why the guy who talked about the End of History in 1990 was 'way off track. But hey, he got a lot of air time at the time.

Meantime we watched and waited for another Other to come along. It arrived in 2001. Kinda ironic that the current Other arose out of arming and training in Pakistan, the opponents of the Russians in Afghanistan.

Re:Same story, different time

[khallow]

Actually, those newcomers are not getting the American Dream. They're getting bread and circuses, trickled down by the owners at the top.

We can reason instead of just saying things. As it turns out, most multinational businesses pay with money instead of food and entertainment. That can be spent on far more than the "bread and circuses". So the employees are getting more than what you claim.

Re:Same story, different time

[tragedy]

More importantly, 49% are always losers in any democratic system. Whether it is a two party system, or N party system.

That's flawed logic based, I supposed, on a notion of "winning" derived from the current system. Or maybe just from too much exposure to sports, or other such competitive paradigms. The way elections should work is to filter the candidates so that the person who gets the position comes from a small pool of people who are _all_ qualified for the job. Consider the fact that no-one really "wins" just because the candidate they voted for got the position. They win if the candidate who is elected is not corrupt, and actually good at their job. People get super-focused on the fact that one candidate or another may be for or against some detail of gun control, or abortion, or homosexual marriage, etc. Those things may be important but actually running the country competently is also important. Frankly, what this country needs is a few decades of competent, intelligent administrators who understand the constitutional limits on their powers, actually act in a lawful manner, don't appoint cronies and contributors to any position, actually READ and also understand the legislation they are voting for, aren't campaigning for re-election all the time, etc., etc. Instead there have been decades and decades of back and forth "victories" between two big sides, whose candidates generally immediately betray everyone the moment they're in office.

He WAS ex-soviet

[i kan reed]

Being an expatriate of another country(especially a rival) is pretty much universal cause for suspicion by the CIA/NSA/FBI. Just try and get security clearance if you are one(it'll never happen).

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[rubycodez]

now that's funny. He came over to New York when he was three. His family was Jewish and only spoke Yiddish and some English at home; he never learned Russian because his family didn't speak it.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[i kan reed]

It doesn't matter, because if you have relatives in another country, they just assume that country has potential leverage over you.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be reality, but it's bullshit paranoia and simply shouldn't happen.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[alexander_686]

This is a bit off tangent, but IIRC Asimov was very loosely connected with the nuclear weapons program.

Towards the end of WWII he was drafted into the army. He was going to be shipped off to Bikini Island to help with the testing protocols but was demobilized just before being sent.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

He was born in the USSR. That makes him suspicious, not from Communist leanings, but from divided loyalties. Honestly, I wouldn't trust someone born in a different country who *doesn't* have divided loyalties.

However, in his writing, he is the furthest thing from a communist. See what he says about democratic and egalitarian movements in the Galactic Empire in his Foundation prequels. Of course, he was also not a fascist; he wrote several books about nationalist societies, such as Lucky Starr and the Moons of Saturn, and that story The Currents of Space, about the Empire of Trantor moving in on the nationalist backwater Sark and its slave world Florina and the silly trouble those planets cause.

He's really more of a royalist than anything else.

Also, he was the most prolific writer ever, save R.L.Stein, who wrote the same story over and over and over, and he wrote several science books as well, and was a biochemistry professor in his spare time. He died in the late '90s of AIDS that he contracted from a blood transfusion back before they figured out that they need to check for HIV and throw out donated blood that contains the virus.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an expatriate of another country(especially a rival) is pretty much universal cause for suspicion by the CIA/NSA/FBI. Just try and get security clearance if you are one(it'll never happen).

Former Navy linguist here. Many of my fellow cryptologic technicians - interpretive were born in another country, even still had relatives or property there, and nonetheless managed to hold the TS/SCI clearance required for the job. If your foreign origin has endowed you with a skill that the US needs, like mastery of a foreign language, then of course you can get a clearance.

The case of Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese-born scientist who held a security clearance and was erroneously prosecuted for violating security norms, was a pretty public affair especially in places like Slashdot, so you should have been aware that your claim here is bogus.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Charliemopps]

Leverage over a SciFi author? Were they afraid he'd give them the secret launch codes to his imaginary alien super weapons?

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Asimov. He didn't have aliens. He had robots. GIANT KILLER DEATH ROBOTS.

Did you want the Soviets to get the remote controls?

Oh you did? COMMUNIST!

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[rubycodez]

he had clearance to work at PNY Naval Air Experimentation Station for three years during WW II. then as other poster notes he then was drafting into US army right after war until his honorable discharge....good grief, guy helps out his country in time of need and afterward gets targeted with suspicion and stinky eye

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

for three years during WW II.

The list of countries allied with the US changed somewhat afterwards.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[rubycodez]

yes, and Asimov rose to rank of corporal in the Army afterwards

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[alexander_686]

On a tad slightly more serious note, the USSR did republish a lot of his work. They claimed they were not stealing his work. He could come to Moscow at any time to pick up royalties – in non-convertible rubles.

(Besides, his robots were governed by the 3 laws of robotics. Rule #1, unless overridden by Rule #0, would have prevented the robots from killing too many people.)

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

A Soviet Defector at NSA (DOCID: 4001125) http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_spectrum/soviet_defector_nsa.pdf

CAPTCHA: junction

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[alexander_686]

Honestly, I wouldn't trust someone born in a different country who *doesn't* have divided loyalties.

I don’t know about that. I am thinking about another Russian born writer Ann Rand. Her hatred of the USSR and Russia and love of America was pretty clear. Or maybe it would be better to say that I would trust Ann Rand to be Any Rand.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[camperdave]

If you want leverage over a SciFi author, make sure you get the right one.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[HiThere]

You think that's bad, you should check out the history of (classical) Athens. Democracies have a poor record WRT rewarding people who help them. And Athens didn't even have a bureaucracy to blame it on.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[HiThere]

Don't want to give the wrong impression. Totalitarian states aren't all that hot either. Look up Belisarius of Byzantium.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Jason Levine]

Maybe they wanted the secrets of psychohistory with which they could crush those pinko commies once and for all.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains why Zapp Brannigan's tactics work.

Re:He WAS ex-soviet

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in the USSR and I had Top Secret Clearance. Your "it'll never happen" is wrong.

Tipstes are notoriously Unamerican.

[ultraexactzz]

I mean, some of them might be alright, but.....

Efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

But now, thanks to the diligence of the NSA, writers such as Asimov can be scanned for their views with the very first controversial line written and the draft saved on Google Docs.

The FBI can then be dispatched posthaste, avoiding all the wasteful sympathizer-hunting time. Progress!

Your File At The F.B.I ( Score: +5, Seditious )

[Anonymous Coward]

The F.B.I. has a file on EVERYONE. In most cases, they are NOT ACTIVE until there's an intercept.

Yours In Space,
Kilgore Trout

Stinkin reds took our r's

[Anonymous Coward]

These tipstes were also polluting our precious bodily fluids when they wern't busy with the letter thievery and laws creation.

Re: WTF is going on with this country?

[mmell]

Isn't it obvious?

Just do as you're told. We'll take good care of you.

I'm thinking...

[the_skywise]

L. Ron Hubbard was the accuser...

Re:I'm thinking...

[M. Baranczak]

Really? I was thinking Philip Dick.

Re:I'm thinking...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is voted as funny, but if I recall correctly, Phillip K. Dick did think that Stainslaw Lem wasn't actually a person but a pseudonym for a number of writers with pro-Soviet ideals.

(In fact, looking this up, this is supported by the "official site" of Lem: http://english.lem.pl/faq#P.K.Dick)

Nothing new in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

The US citizens are always being told to be scared of somebody. The "Communist", terrorists, gays, etc. When would be the day that they are the true land of the free?

Who's betting the tipster was L.Ron Hubbard?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a paranoid schizophrenic writing to the FBI about communism everywhere, and he was also insanely jealous of others' success, while he remained mediocre as a writer of sci-fi even as the basis for his Scientology cult.
Someone wrote on his FBI file: "Appears mental".

In those days

[nurb432]

.. But today you are actually rewarded for being a socialist. ( which was what they used the term communist for back then.. not true Communism )

Re:In those days

[dkleinsc]

But today you are actually rewarded for being a socialist.

This is only true if you think the statement "The government should promote the general welfare" immediately makes you a socialist.

The number of people able to make a living because they are socialists is (being generous) around 1000, and most of them not a particularly good living. There are some people that hold good jobs and also are socialists, but typically they hold those jobs because of their skills unrelated to their politics. What absolutely doesn't exist is a well-established and well-funded set of organizations with media outlets, think tanks, etc hiring bunches of people making well over $250,000 a year promoting socialism, whereas such organizations do exist for movement conservatism (some talk radio, Fox News, Heritage Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, etc), libertarians (some talk radio, Cato Institute, some Tea Party organizations), and to a lesser degree for the Democratic Party (MSNBC, Brookings Institution, AFL-CIO). But there's a giant gap between the Democratic Party and actual socialists: The Democrats want to keep getting their nice big donations from big corporations, so they shy away from doing anything that smacks of bona-fide socialism.

If you're thinking that the people receiving welfare are being rewarded for being a socialist, that doesn't make any sense, because welfare recipients receive their benefits regardless of whether they're a socialist or not. They are arguably benefiting from the majority of voters believing that a bit of socialism in the name of preventing people from starving or freezing to death is a good idea, but that's different from they themselves being socialists.

What is true is that being a socialist no longer destroys your career like it did in the 1950's.

Re:In those days

[mi]

This is only true if you think the statement "The government should promote the general welfare" immediately makes you a socialist.

It might, depending on what you think, the meaning of that phrase is. If "promoting general welfare" means — to you — people need to be subsidized to be "well", then, yes, you are a Socialist, willing to rob the productive Peter to console the idle Paul.

What absolutely doesn't exist is a well-established and well-funded set of organizations with media outlets, think tanks, etc hiring bunches of people making well over $250,000 a year promoting socialism

Not true. The apparatus you are talking about exists and is scary. I'm talking about all the federal and state bureaucrats working on dispensing the taxpayers' monies to the "less fortunate". Their comfortable jobs — which give them the pay, the benefits, and the daily reassurance, they are better than others (their visitors) — would all be at risk, if the number of recipients went down. Obama Administration, for example, goes to great length to sign-up new recipients of Food Stamps, spending millions of dollars per month just on the advertisements for the program — something unthinkable, when it was originated. Why, if you need to be "encouraged to sign-up", then you don't really need the assistance — it is only for the truly desperate. Are you going to pretend, it is done out of sincere concern for the poor? No, it is because feeding those people — at someone else's expense — is a source of comfy jobs.

Sadly, their efforts — in what FDR once called "administering a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of human spirt" — are successful.

If you're thinking that the people receiving welfare are being rewarded for being a socialist

No, not at all — some recipients are decidedly against the existing setup. (So much so, they are being ridiculed for "hypocrisy", when, in fact, it is just the opposite — their willingness to abolish the program that benefits them shows their sincerity.)

They are arguably benefiting from the majority of voters believing that a bit of socialism in the name of preventing people from starving or freezing to death is a good idea

The majority of voters are being tricked into thinking, the programs do good to people in real need. Yet, the stories of people selling their food stamps (including on facebook, which, BTW, reveals their ability to afford a computer and Internet-access) constantly give a lie to the lamentations about "food insecurity".

Simply put, a politician, who is elected on the promise to "fight poverty" has a conflict of interest — what is he going to run on next time, if he succeeds in destroying poverty today? The Military-Industrial Complex, at least, produces something. The Welfare-Industrial Complex is completely parasitic.

Re:In those days

[houghi]

Socialist: I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:In those days

[shutdown -p now]

you are a Socialist, willing to rob the productive Peter to console the idle Paul.

Classic Marxist socialism is, in fact, the reverse - "robbing" the idle Paul, who happens to own capital which pays him rent, to pay the productive Peter who gets almost nothing because most of the wealth he creates he has to give away to Peter in rent for using his capital to do something productive.

Re:In those days

[dkleinsc]

The Military-Industrial Complex, at least, produces something. The Welfare-Industrial Complex is completely parasitic.

Oh really?

For example, when House Speaker John Boehner inserts a provision into an unrelated bill to require the army to buy overpriced M1 tanks that they don't even want, that just happen to be built in his district, why exactly is that in any way beneficial to society? And why are we not willing to see welfare as the cost of preventing riots of starving desperate people in the streets?

Your position, in a nutshell, has 3 major problems:

First objection: People who lack the basic necessities of life do whatever it takes to acquire those necessities. They will try to find work, but given that there are currently 3 unemployed people per open position that only solves, at most, 1/3 of the problem. If they can't find work to pay for those necessities, they may try borrowing the money, but that will ruin their credit pretty quickly (which, incidentally, makes it even harder to find work). If they can't work, and can't borrow the money because they've ruined their credit, they will steal those necessities. That gives your "productive Peter" of the world 3 options for dealing with at least 2/3 of the "idle Pauls":
- Lock them up in a prison. But because prison (~$45,000 per year) is more expensive than welfare (~$20,000 per year), this is neither in the interests of Paul (who gets locked up) or Peter (who has higher taxes to pay for the prisons).
- Let them go, which means they'll steal again, which means that whoever is getting stolen from is paying the costs that welfare would have paid. This is at best no better than welfare.
- Kill them, which violates the fundamental moral teachings of just about every human society.

Second objection: There is no clear dividing line between who's a "productive Peter" and who's an "idle Paul". Most welfare recipients receive benefits for less than 2 years, which means that they were productive, hit a bad spell, and eventually became productive again. If you condemn "idle Paul" to death (which, as we've seen above, is the only method of dealing with him that doesn't involve taking some resources from "productive Peter") for his lack of productivity, you lose his many years of potential productivity that he could have after his bad spell. That wastes the resources that were used in raising and educating Paul.

Third objection: Productivity and income or wealth are plainly not directly related. For example, Christy Walton has produced over her career, approximately nothing, and has a fortune of about $15 billion and an annual investment income of well over $150 million. By contrast,my former barber, currently surviving on government benefits, with no wealth to his name, worked full time his adult life until the nerve damage he sustained in Vietnam made him unable to do his job. The Vietnam vet didn't produce anything fantastic, but his thousands of haircuts were probably of more benefit to society than the absolutely nothing that Christy Walton managed. So why is it that you seem to think it's morally bad to keep Mr Vietnam Vet alive with tax money from Ms Walton? What makes her worthy of adulation, and him so heinous that you're willing to condemn him to death?

Re:In those days

[mi]

Classic Marxist Socialism was long ago been established as mistaken at best and fraudulent at worst. There is no "idle capitalist" — not in an environment, where there are other capitalists competing with him, being idle is a losing proposition.

Marx' definition of value was completely wrong — he proposed to value the work based on the effort put into it, not the results. From this he concluded, that the "hard-working" proletariat were "robbed" (never mind their completely voluntary joining)...

Modern Socialists don't define it this way — or they'd get laughed out off any forum except their own. Their description for the idle is "less fortunate"... But, as Heinlein put it, there are only three categories: makers, takers, and fakers — there is no fourth choice. If you aren't making, you must be one of the other two and anybody proposing, you be fed (and sheltered, and entertained, and educated, and, most recently, treated) at the expense of the makers — is either soft in the head or, worse, expects to personally profit from the "wealth redistribution" he advocates.

Re:In those days

[mi]

when House Speaker John Boehner inserts a provision into an unrelated bill to require the army to buy overpriced M1 tanks that they don't even want, that just happen to be built in his district, why exactly is that in any way beneficial to society?

It makes things — metal is poured, people retain (and improve) their skills at it and the many other things required to make the tank. I agree wholeheartedly, that it is wasteful — but not as wasteful (and destructive) than the endless subsidy.

People who lack the basic necessities of life do whatever it takes to acquire those necessities ...

but given that there are currently 3 unemployed people per open position

Citation needed... But, even we accept these numbers, why is it, that numerous immigrants — legal and otherwise — come to this country and manage to not only do rather well, but to support extended families back home? They are, we are told — by Democrats and certain Republicans alike — "taking jobs Americans would not do"... Of course, Americans don't need to take such jobs — various government programs provide the "safety net", that's more comfortable, than getting up in the morning.

If they can't work, and can't borrow the money because they've ruined their credit, they will steal those necessities

Oh, now the truth comes out... It is not the kind benevolence, that keeps you wanting to pay them — it is the fear of them robbing you... Makes sense.

But, no, the first option you listed — and dismissed so quickly — is perfectly practical. There is plenty of work to be done, but some of it pays less, than the government's handouts do — so, why bother?..

Christy Walton has produced over her career ...

Christy Walton's late husband provided for her — her current wealth was earned by him. She is the lucky beneficiary of our civilization's notion, that the dying are allowed to decide, who gets their wealth after them — whether she "deserves" it is not for us to decide, the monies are her husband's.

What makes her worthy of adulation, and him so heinous that you're willing to condemn him to death?

I am neither adulating over Ms. Walton, nor condemning anybody to death. I am not counting other people's monies — you do...

As for your poster-vet (assuming he actually exists and is not collecting the pay he duly earned in Vietnam), you've already admitted, that your own concern for such people stems not from compassion, but from fear, he would turn to robbing you.

But even if it were compassion — you are welcome to help him out, if his case seems compelling to you. You are even welcome to attempt to convince perfect strangers (like me) to help him out. What you are not entitled to (or should not be) is forcing me (at gun-point — implicit in all tax-collection) to pay for the guy, who did not manage to save for his own retirement in over 40 years since his military service ended...

Re:In those days

[shutdown -p now]

There is no "idle capitalist" — not in an environment, where there are other capitalists competing with him, being idle is a losing proposition.

This is trivially disproven just by looking around. Any person that owns enough stocks that they can live on the dividends is such an "idle capitalist".

From this he concluded, that the "hard-working" proletariat were "robbed" (never mind their completely voluntary joining)...

Did you miss that entire part of human history where worker strikes were suppressed with machine guns and gallows in most countries?

"Voluntary" is a funny word... if, between me and my friends, we control all the industry in the country, then as an industrial worker, you are free to come and work for us, or to go and starve to death. No-one's forcing you at gunpoint, so it's free, right?

Marx' definition of value was completely wrong — he proposed to value the work based on the effort put into it, not the results.

This is a popular misunderstanding of his interpretation of theory on labor. First of all, he did not "propose to value" anything - in The Capital, he was studying how economy works, not giving directives on how to fix it. His theory of value attempts to explain why the market values certain things higher than the others, and where the higher value of goods compared to the raw materials that they're made from comes from. In doing so, he did indeed consider labor as key, but only productive labor, not just any application of human effort. He was well aware of the broken window fallacy.

But, as Heinlein put it, there are only three categories: makers, takers, and fakers — there is no fourth choice. If you aren't making, you must be one of the other two and anybody proposing, you be fed (and sheltered, and entertained, and educated, and, most recently, treated) at the expense of the makers — is either soft in the head or, worse, expects to personally profit from the "wealth redistribution" he advocates.

As noted earlier, socialists wholeheartedly agree with the division into "makers" and "takers" - they just disagree with you on which is which. So, from their perspective, the existing arrangement is the makers feeding the takers at their own expense, and that's something that they have set out to fix.

Coincidentally, that's why modern progressives aren't socialists. They, as you say, are driven purely by empathy towards the "less fortunate"; they don't actually want to upset the existing arrangement of makers and takers, only make the takers take less to slightly improve the makers' lot.

Re:In those days

[DNS-and-BIND]

Why would being a socialist have destroyed your career? Was it because 50s socialists wanted to overthrow the elected US government and replace it with a tyrannous government more to their liking? And then this government would take its marching orders from International Headquarters? Oh yes, that was it!

Maybe I forgot...maybe you forgot too. Or maybe you never learned in the first place.

Re:In those days

[david_thornley]

Ah, yet another slashdotter who has no idea what socialism is, but is willing to badmouth it.

Re:In those days

[Anonymous Coward]

...including on facebook, which, BTW, reveals their ability to afford a computer and Internet-access...

Except for the fact that public libraries have computers and internet for free, public use; but dont let the facts get in your way.

Re:In those days

[cffrost]

But today you are actually rewarded for being a socialist.

Do you mean, for example, the workers that own and operate Moosewood Restaurant in Ithica, NY, or Firestorm Cafe & Books in Asheville, NC? They're rewarded with customer patronage, but also (generally) low maximum/minimum wage ratios, decent job security (e.g., no fear of being fired in order to increase stock price), the satisfaction in working for themselves, and the democratic participation in decisions that affect themselves and their business — as opposed to being compelled by external and/or superfluous influences (e.g., shareholders, and often unaccountable, outsider CEOs) — liberties that are, sadly, unavailable to wage-slaves.

Re:In those days

[Mr. Slippery]

But today you are actually rewarded for being a socialist

How exactly, in this time of increasing economic inequality and concentration of wealth, is one rewarded for desiring an economic system where resources are controlled by the people who do productive work rather than a minority of state-backed capitalists?

Or do you, like more of my fellow Americans, just have no fscking idea what "socialist" means?

Stop... Clenching, Err, Resisting

[Flere Imsaho]

The war on drugs appears to be escalating, too http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/innocent-man-given-anal-cavity-search-colonoscopy-after-rolling-through-a-stop-sign/

Re: Stop... Clenching, Err, Resisting

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a straightforward, unapologetic anal probing by our alien oiverloirds would be quite refreshing by comparison, actually.

Russian origin

[green is the enemy]

I would guess every person of Russian origin was a suspected spy. Granted, Isaac Asimov left Russia when he was 3. Even so, it may be possible to coerce someone like this into spying, for example by threatening some of his relatives still in Russia (if he had any). Using his Sci Fi work as some sort of evidence is far fetched, but the suspicions less so. One does not need to sympathize with the communist regime in order to spy.

Re:Russian origin

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read the documents, it goes much further than that. They had a known but unidentified spy in academia, in a very similar field and location to him. Also, his name was on a list recovered from some political or revolutionary group or other; there was no note about whether he was a part of it, or even contacted by them, but that's certainly enough to start a non-invasive investigation on.

Why is this a story?

[Anonymous Coward]

When now they have a file on every single person.

Privacy Irony

[ZombieBraintrust]

Was this requested by his decendents? Or can anyone request FBI files on random people. Seems wierd that random info that FBI collects on people would be in the public interest.

Between the communists and the FBI

[Mister Liberty]

I know which ones I'd prefer today.

FOI

[themushroom]

Welcome to the Freedom of Information Act. Making the formerly-secretive unsecret, which is a good thing.

Re:FOI

[Anonymous Coward]

A good thing.... perhaps. But by that logic all of YOUR emails will be public knowledge in a few years. Because if the NSA have them, why shouldn't we all?

Steganography

[PPH]

Subtle variations in spelling and grammar in Slashdot posts are the only means we have left to conceal communications from the NSA.

Re:Steganography

[roc97007]

Oh crap, you sent that in the clear! Erase! Erase!

Re:Steganography

[PPH]

Or just sit back and see how many data centers the NSA dedicates to breaking the 'timothy' code.

Re:Steganography

[Jason Levine]

NSA Guy #1: "Slashdot posted a duplicate article on Slashdot again."
NSA Guy #2: "Compare it against the last one. If we find out how they vary, we might be able to decrypt their code."
NSA Guy #1: "Rats, they posted another dupe!"
NSA Guy #2: "We need more computing power to crack this."
NSA Guy #1: "I giving it all I've got, captain!"
NSA Guy #2: "What?"
NSA Guy #1: "Sorry. Too much Slashdot."

Scary twist ending

[GameboyRMH]

If you read the whole report, the most suspicious things they have on him are that he's an academic in biology like this spy they're looking for codenamed "ROBPROF," and he wrote reviews for a defunct magazine that had a similar name to a defunct communist publication.

Then in the last page they say that even though none of this really matches up, they should still consider that he could be ROBPROF and they should keep an eye on him because his "background contains information inimical to the best interests of the United States" 8-(

Re:Scary twist ending

[Anonymous Coward]

They're watching you too GameboyRMH

Re:Scary twist ending

[locofungus]

Then in the last page they say that even though none of this really matches up, they should still consider that he could be ROBPROF and they should keep an eye on him because his "background contains information inimical to the best interests of the United States" 8-(

That reminds me of the old joke:

Q. Why do the KGB go around in threes?

A. One can read, one can write and one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals.

Re:Scary twist ending

[GameboyRMH]

Maybe they are, Asimov probably looked about as dangerous and "un-American" as Larry the Cable Guy compared to me...on the other hand they never noticed Dzokhar Tsarnaev so I shouldn't be surprised if I'm off their radar entirely.

His biggest mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

was not working for the Nazis on some super-duper secret project. He would have been welcomed with open arms then

His Stories

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read a lot of his books recently. When they were written there wasn't as much political bias in everything as there is now. With that being said.

Many of his stories are about comunist societies being the norm in the future. They are also all messed up and utterly unable to be fixed, requiring less of a central command and control structure and more localized governance to continue on. This seems to be one of about five common themes running through almost all of his stories. It may be because of his home country of USSR and how it failed and how he considered the US at the time better. Its almost as if he wanted communism to work in his books, but thinking about it he just couldn't imagine leaders not corrupt running it.

However, the end of the Foundation Series ends up in the most integrated communist inter-galatic society possible. I always wondered if he wrote more after that ending if it would end up being a failure and colapsing again. Maybe he did write something like that and I just don't know about it yet.

Wait, What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that we're dealing with bed-wedding paranoids here (just substitute Communist for Terrorist) but how the fuck can you even be an "informant" in academia? I know things probably weren't quite as interconnected but I'm pretty sure they exchanged papers and research with Europe.

Was it a pretense for bashing those darn intellectuals for daring to point out that they're full of shit?

Communism and Asimov's Sf Club

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Asimov was one of the Futurians (if that was the name?), and a good chunk of the Futurians did attempt to distribute Communist pamphlets at the first Worldcon in 1939 (IIRC -- and the attempt was stopped by Worldcon organizers, who felt that non-sf politics had no place there). However, Asimov was also allegedly the Futurian who thought the pamphlets were a stupid idea as compared to Worldcon coolness, and quickly abandoned exile in the coffee shop across the street to return to Worldcon, hang out with non-Futurian friends, and watch Metropolis. Pretty soon they all trickled back across the street (IIRC).

(And strictly speaking, they weren't all Communists, but rather had some sort of idealistic idea about science fiction bettering world politics. But the group's "Cool Older Guy" was a Communist, so the club's politics ended up having a Communist and/or Trotskyist bent. At the time, Frederick Pohl and Donald A. Wollheim (later of DAW Books) were both Communist in their politics, among many others.)

However, it would appear that neither the FBI nor the informant knew about the Futurians thing. And a lot of sf fandom lost enthusiasm for Communism as history made it clear to them that Stalin was Not Good.

Re:Communism and Asimov's Sf Club

[david_thornley]

Communist ideals are actually pretty attractive, if you ignore the slight flaw that we haven't found a species they'll work for. I could be very happy in a workers' paradise, except that I'd want contact now and then with actual human beings. The Soviet Union was adept at diverting attention from how it was going there, making excuses for slow progress, and just keeping things secret, and a fair number of Western intelligentsia were taken in. This was helped along by the Depression, which caused many people to believe that capitalism just didn't work.

There's also a popular science fiction utopia involving an extremely wealthy society where people don't actually have to work for a living, and by not working aren't a noticeable drain on the economy, since there really isn't an economic role for most people as producers. Ownership of the means of production becomes irrelevant, and everybody benefits, which is actually socialism. (Take that situation and keep capitalism intact and you get a typical cyberpunk dystopia. I prefer the socialist version.) The goal is similar to a Communist utopia, although structurally different so it does have a prayer of working, but the methods are nothing alike.

I see a difference between somebody having political views and somebody taking orders from another, hostile, country, but that distinction rather got lost during the period.

Asimov in the Politically Odd World of Early SF

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an old post from Encyclopedia Asimova:

"On Sunday, September 18, 1938, I traveled to the meeting place and, for the first time, took part in any grouping of science-fiction fans."

(The next part of Asimov's diary is the same that was reproduced in Damon Knight's book, The Futurians. I reproduce it again:)

On September 18, 1938, Asimov wrote in his diary:

"I attended the first meeting of the Futurians, and boy, did I have a good time. Attending likewise were such famous fans as Don A. Wollman (sic), John Michel, Frederik Pohl, Doc Lowndes. Dick Wilson was also there, but did not join the club as he is not a socially minded fan. Jack Rubinson was also there, aaltogether there were twelve, including Wildon and myself. We enjoyed a three-hour session of strict parliamentary discipline,- you know, motions and amendments, and votes and objections etc. Next time we will proceed to business of speeches, debate, etc. Dues are 10 cents a month, with a 25 cent initiation fee, which I paid, of course. I also spent a nickel on a chance, but I lost.

"They held the meeting in a sort of hall which is also a Communist Party headquarters at other times. We have an organ which is called the Science Fiction Advance, and comes out once every two months. It was put out by another club previously [the Committee for the Political Advancement of Science Fiction], which has now broken up, and I have the first two copies. I intend to write for [the magazine], but hesitate to put my name to violently radical and probably atheistical articles, so I am wondering if they will allow me to write under a pseudonym.

"After the meeting we all went down to an ice cream parlor where they bought $1.90 worth of sodas, banana splits and sandwiches. I didn't get anything thugh. There I had an uproarious time with Wollheim [sic, and the correct spelling], who has taken a liking to me."

[So as you see, some early sf clubs were in a rather Communist political space, although of course other early sf fans were more conservative, libertarian, monarchist, etc. But since the FBI didn't even bother to look into this stuff, I guess it doesn't matter. Another early sf amusing juxtaposition of clubs with overlapping membership was the LA Science Fiction Society, Ordo Templo Orientis, and a rocket building club.]

How would NSA view Assimov ?

[Taco Cowboy]

I mean, if Isaac Asimov is alive today, how would NSA view him ?

Or more importantly, how would Isaac Asimov view the unconstitutional activities NSA has carried out under the name of "National Security" ?

Re:How would NSA view Assimov ?

[RabidReindeer]

I mean, if Isaac Asimov is alive today, how would NSA view him ?

Or more importantly, how would Isaac Asimov view the unconstitutional activities NSA has carried out under the name of "National Security" ?

As one of millions of people worth monitoring.

We built this giant telescope called the

[Marrow]

stock market to focus all of the evil in the universe. Then we looked through the telescope.

Okay, wtf?

[RogueWarrior65]

As a B.U. alum (twice), I never knew Asimov taught there. Lots of unremarkable names are on buildings but there's no Asimov library of science fiction. Kinda pisses me off.

Nazis are the new Commies

[Baldrson]

It took a nuclear arms race to make Commies the ultimate boogieman hiding under every rock but it took Hollywood to make the Nazis take their place -- and boy have they gotten mileage out of that Holocaust thing! Ask anyone what "the holocaust" meant before the 1970s and they'd tell you it was the impending total nuclear war between the Commies and the good-guys, and nowadays if you ask anyone what the greatest threat to mankind is they'll say the threat of another Holocaust posed by guys who have opinions about race, gays, women and immigration similar to those held by the US soldiers who volunteered to kill Nazis in WW II. If you ask your average Joe what "the holodomor" is he'll probably say its some sort of 3D picture with lasers or something.

The motion picture is mightier than the MIRV.

Rings a bell

[MichaelSmith]

someone not-so-subtly accused him of communist sympathies in a letter to J. Edgar Hoover.

Sounds like something Arthur Clarke would do as a practical joke.

I'm a communist sympathizer

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew there was a reason I likes Asimov so much.

even for /., OT reigns

[cellocgw]

Is *anyone* going to post something which references Asimov?

At the very least, maybe "Feeling of Power" or that other story about the top military brass discussing just how they processed Field Intel, could be worth discussing as "FBI warning fodder."

Re:even for /., OT reigns

[cellocgw]

Ok, well, nice to see the junk faded out after a page or two.

Now let's see what the FCNBISIAA have on Stephenson and Gibson.

Re:even for /., OT reigns

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Stephenson is obviously a proponent of tax evasion. As for Gibson he is anti-capitalist. So, erm, whatever.

Re:even for /., OT reigns

[Paul Fernhout]

See my comment here on robotics and economics: http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4422509&cid=45382891

But yes, sad...

Pbfft.. Science Fiction writers

[thoughtlover]

Can't live with em.. can't live without em.

I'd love to know who to attribute this quote to --I think it's Frank Herbert, but was never able to verify it after some modest searching: The purpose of science fiction isn't necessarily to predict, but sometime to prevent.

Robotics and future economics

[Paul Fernhout]

I was hoping someone would post something connecting Asimov's writings about robotics and political thinking, and your post comes closest of what I've seen so far.

Early in Asimov's future history are the "Spacers" who have a lot of robots per person. Aurora in "The Robotics of Dawn" is the most extreme in that regard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Robots_of_Dawn

At the end of the book, the Earthers conclude they have nothing to fear from the Spacers because having so much robotic abundance has somehow sapped the will of the Spacers to expand, and so the Galaxy is open to the teeming masses of less technologically advanced Earthers (or something like that, it's been a long while since I read it).

The general setting as explained in another novel of the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel
"They live roughly three millennia in Earth's future, a time when hyperspace travel has been discovered, and a few worlds relatively close to Earth have been colonised â" fifty planets known as the "Spacer worlds". The Spacer worlds are rich, have low population density (average population of one hundred million each), and use robot labor very heavily. Meanwhile, Earth is overpopulated (with a total population of eight billion), and strict rules against robots have been passed."

That theme of robots somehow sapping human will for initiative, health, and growth is a recurring theme in Asimov's work. I think the "mighty brains" that solve all human problems including weather control on Earth decide to shut themselves off at some point? Harry Seldon's "plan" hinges on a mysterious working-behind-the-scenes Second Foundation. Also, the advanced robots that continue from the previous novels are also said to somehow direct human affairs behind-the-scenes for human betterment (whatever that is) without being known, because if their influence was known it would somehow be bad for humanity.

There probably is a lot to discuss there about themes that relate to capitalism, communism, and socialism. Any discussion of such should bear in min a point that Chomsky makes, that the USSR claimed socialism was what it was doing as "Communism" even though what the USSR was more about was totalitarianism/authoritarianism at the time. But Chomsky also suggests the USA in vilifying socialism as what the USSR did also was doing that as self-justification for its own power structures and to avoid people thinking about alternatives. We have seen over the past few decades in the USA the vast increasing concentration of wealth as the wealthy buy favorable laws and also buy non-profits to spew pro-wealth-centralization propaganda, resulting in essentially flat real wages while the GDP more than doubled. Contrast that with more "socialist" countries of Western Europe like the Netherlands, Sweden, or even Germany, which in general show overall higher levels of health and happiness across the population that the USA.

On modern Germany:
http://www.salon.com/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010/
"How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place?
The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans."

By today's US standards, the "New Deal" is socialism, and the US Republicans are bent on turning it back in any way they can -- and many US Democrats for the most part are willing to let them under some notion of "compromise".

See also:

He was a member of the The Futurians...

[Purpleslog]

..and there turned out be lots of communists and communist sympathizers in that group. See: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/sf-history.html "Not until the late 1970s did any the participants admit that many of the key Futurians had histories as ideological Communists or fellow travellers, and that fact remained relatively unknown in the field well into the 1990s. As with later revolts against the Campbellian tradition, part of the motivation was a desire to escape the "conservative" politics that went with that tradition. While the Futurians' work was well understood at the time to be a poke at the consumer capitalism and smugness of the postwar years, only in retrospect is it clear how much they owed to the Frankfurt school of Marxist critical theory."