[FoRK] Special Circumstances

[Jeff Bone]

On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Stephen Williams wrote:

> I don't see how the end of scarcity could possibly mean communism.   
> I believe Communism was mainly motivated by the belief, or at least  
> the advertised belief, that no one should have too much lest they  
> take away "unfairly" from someone else.  I think they believed that  
> anyone that got ahead would automatically have an unfair "network  
> effect" to the disadvantage of others.  As we have noted, Communism  
> seemed to assume a zero-sum game with plenty of scarcity.  Perhaps  
> true of Russia for a while, but not the modern world.  When everyone  
> has "too much", Communism becomes a nullity.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree with plentiful utopias being considered  
> collectivisms.  In interpersonal boundaries and the commons there is  
> a need to cooperate in sophisticated ways, however when those  
> concerns aren't an issue, the operating mode can be pretty much king- 
> like individualism.  More god-like at some point.

I don't necessarily disagree.  In fact, shortly after I'd read my  
first Culture novel several years ago, I came across an article  
somewhere that referred to the envisioned society as being "communist"  
--- and I was quite taken aback, as I hadn't seen Banks' society as  
being communist at all.  After reading more of his novels, and in  
particular after reading multiple interviews with him, it's quite  
clear that that's how *he* sees the Culture, he actually uses that  
language in describing it (or, alternatively, "socialist.")  And this  
is a sub-theme in several of the works, too;  there's a sort of  
epidemic helplessness and ennui among the human participants in the  
Culture, at least those for whom the limitless decadence and "staged  
purpose" is not fulfilling... there's a kind of restlessness among  
many of the human protagonists in his stories that stems from being so  
far removed from the real decision-making core of the Culture, the  
Minds.  The economy, while not centrally planned per se, is entirely  
in the hands of the Minds both individually and collectively.

So perhaps "communism" or "socialism" is not an entirely appropriate  
term, but one wonders;  if the power gradient (and hence the control  
of resources) in some future post-scarcity world is as steep as is  
envisioned by Banks, then isn't that effectively a kind of  
collectivism?  Or is it more a kind of feudalism?  Is there some  
better term we can come up with?

jb