I don't know if Asimov intended, but when I read the Foundation series it hinted at a stateless society, something mostly anarchic. That, in addition to a grand sociology, might be very upsetting to an entrenched nomenklatura—especially one that was nominally (notionally...) in favour of such a thing. Control freaks dread a crisis of rising expectations.
Thanks for the mention! Asimov said of Foundation once, "I took an empire that was Roman, cast it galaxy-wide, and they said 'Oh, what a brilliant young man this is!'"
Of course, Asimov did far more than that. His sociology was a purely materialistic one. If you read the books, it is present--an objective, rational, scientific analysis of what makes societies rise and fall, and how human nature, for lack of a better term, is just one many-splendored complication that always throws a monkey wrench into the best-laid plans of both rats and men.
I don't know if Asimov intended, but when I read the Foundation series it hinted at a stateless society, something mostly anarchic. That, in addition to a grand sociology, might be very upsetting to an entrenched nomenklatura—especially one that was nominally (notionally...) in favour of such a thing. Control freaks dread a crisis of rising expectations.
Thanks for the mention! Asimov said of Foundation once, "I took an empire that was Roman, cast it galaxy-wide, and they said 'Oh, what a brilliant young man this is!'"
Of course, Asimov did far more than that. His sociology was a purely materialistic one. If you read the books, it is present--an objective, rational, scientific analysis of what makes societies rise and fall, and how human nature, for lack of a better term, is just one many-splendored complication that always throws a monkey wrench into the best-laid plans of both rats and men.
If we have to start civilisation all over again, this time without any mistakes, then I'm reserving priority places for cartoonists!