[FoRK] Special Circumstances

[Kevin Elliott]

On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:

>
> 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?

I think the key issue is that in a true post-scarcity world, the  
entire science of economics loses meaning.  Economics is about how to  
allocate scarce resource- no scarcity, no economics.

In many ways that world does look like the end state envisioned by  
Marx.  But the only way to get there is to reduce the cost of  
everything down to zero.  At that point why bother with money/ 
ownership/etc?  If somebody needs something, they should have it.   
It's not like anybody loses.

The mistake of communism isn't in it's goal- who wouldn't want to live  
in a world where they could have everything they want for nothing.   
The problem is assuming that centrally managing resources and  
decisions is a sensible way to get there.