> To me the Culture novels always seemed precisely the projection of a certain kind of old 19th-century Socialist (or Anarchist) utopia into the far future: no

> To me the Culture novels always seemed precisely the projection of a certain kind of old 19th-century Socialist (or Anarchist) utopia into the far future: no capitalism, no corporations, no state, no money, no exploitation of labor, the utter elimination of poverty, people free to pursue their dreams amidst boundless abundance. This post-scarcity Utopian vision works equally well for most varieties of libertarian, socialist and capitalist alike. The Culture respects individuals' personal freedom and right to own property if they so choose, which is all a right-libertarian requires. Corporations and money are just tools which capitalism offers to deal with scarcity, not ends in themselves—a post-scarcity capitalistic society wouldn't need them. > But I suppose it might be a surprise to some folks whose only idea of socialism is an evil caricature of the big bad state taking their private wealth and telling them what to do. In a society that actually has to deal with scarcity, unlike The Culture, that's pretty much what socialism amounts to in practice. Libertarian socialism is not a stable arrangement in the face of scarcity; it always ends up sacrificing either the libertarianism or the socialism (or both). However, I will freely admit that libertarian socialism can work if you can first eliminate scarcity. (To be fair, almost anything can work if you first eliminate scarcity.)