6 ms·

> Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without. Great essay. I feel like I read this 20 years ago, which is the last time I read the Culture novels. My impres

> Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without. Great essay. I feel like I read this 20 years ago, which is the last time I read the Culture novels. My impression at the time, which remains true on reread now, is that the idea that a post-singularity, post-scarcity society would organize itself along something like socialist lines makes no sense to me, and isn't well-supported (by my recollection) in the novels I read. This is a universe where, if you want, you can just fuck off and have your own planet. It's a place where everything is taken care of for you, not through the thoughtful allocation of resources for mutual benefit, but because it's trivially easy for a machine to just give you everything you ask for. There is no need to even think about who owns what, because everyone can usually have what they want, go where they want, do what they want. I see the anarchy, I don't see the socialism.

notahacker 2y ago
It's socialist in the sense that the Minds could just fuck off and have their own corner of the galaxy, but instead devote processor cycles and physical presence to ensuring helpless little oxygen-breathers have everything they need
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  In one of the books Banks explains that the Minds were created with a bias to be helpful to humans, and that whenever they did try to create a “neutral” Mind that didn’t specifically care about this, the first thing it would do is fuck right off (to another plane of existence.)
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    In fact in-universe the Culture is considered deviant as a whole by similarly advanced civilizations because, instead of focusing on collectively ascending as a civilization as it is proper, they meddle in the affairs of other civilizations.
  - squigz 2y ago
    It's funny to call Subliming "fucking right off." Not inaccurate, but doesn't really have the same ring to it :P
abelsson 2y ago
Economic systems of the 1800s doesn't really make sense in a space based, post scarcity society - economics is after all, the allocation of scarce resources. But I would argue that the ultimate aim of the socialism as envisioned by Marx wasn't government control over the means of production (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") but rather "full communism" where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary, which in a way, does hint at a post scarcity society. So I can see the connection to the original Marx. Less so with the so-far practical implementations of socialism.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  > where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary, ... unnecessary through what? How? I think those are important details ... PS. Honestly asking. Interested in how you further interpret Marx ...
  - abelsson 2y ago
    Unnecessary though productivity outpacing demand as far as I've understood it. In Marxism what they call "full communism" is envisioned to be the "final state of humanity" where productivity is described to be higher than the sum of needs and wants - everybody can help themselves to anything from the warehouses. Obviously very utopian, and I'm not sure there ever was any detailed analysis on how a society a would actually function in "full communism" - but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views. Early Marxists were much a bit more practical, more focused on critiquing the practices of their contemporary societies than envisioning the details of their utopia.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      > but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views Seems right up their alley ...
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think there is a fundamental psychological and social engineering element to Marxism that many socialists gloss over. The end state is one of voluntary labor, contribution and exchange. human desire can outstrip any gains of productive capacity, and includes factors which can not simply be produced. Marx didn't envision everyone owning palaces and yachts post scarcity. He imagined people having enough to get by with moderate comfort for an 1800's standard of living. Similarly, in the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless. I think the truly radical part of Marxist end state communism is the idea that people will outgrow desire for "more" if more is an option. Without this, there will always be squabbling over who gets what. It is this human drive that draws socialism down into totalitarianism.
Bluestein 2y ago
In a way ownership itself becomes obsolete.- Not by polítical of sociological design, but through mere irrelevance, obsolescence.- Interesting ...
- calpal 2y ago
  [dead]
ein0p 2y ago
Not merely socialism, communism. I suspect this is why there isn’t a TV series for it yet.
- arethuza 2y ago
  I found the meme "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" recently and thought it was hilarious (pretty sure Banks would have liked it as well) it does rather capture quite a lot about the spirit of the Culture.
Ekaros 2y ago
Haven't gone too deep to Culture. But it does the whole post-scarcity thing much better than Start Trek does. When anyone can basically do anything they want well, apart from getting space ships... And it is all provided for by essence robots if I have understood right. Whole thing does coherently make sense with advanced enough technology. Where as in many other universes it just does not.
huppeldepup 2y ago
We have recently developed a system that eliminates scarcity for all digital media. The results is not an ideological re-alignment but a crowbar that locks down the rules of scarcity.
- VagabundoP 2y ago
  Now fast forward that by 10k years and what does it look like when time has worn down all those legal issues. The digital society is only two generations old at most.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  At the same time we have not yet eliminated scarcity in other areas. Thus some still need digital scarcity to solve their physical scarcity. If physical scarcity in general was solved issue there would be no need to lock down digital media.
  - calpal 2y ago
    [dead]
  - huppeldepup 2y ago
    My gut tells me that elimination of scarcity is going to be a piecewise proces, whereby each step is countered with a lock-in of scarcity rules.
    - snapplebobapple 2y ago
      My gut tells me the probability we make it to post scarcity without a calamity (probably human manufactured) that ruins our ability to progress to post scarcity is pretty close to zero.
lucubratory 2y ago
>It's a place where everything is taken care of for you, not through the thoughtful allocation of resources for mutual benefit, but because it's trivially easy for a machine to just give you everything you ask for. It's trivially easy for the wealth of Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk to provide for the needs of tens of thousands of people without any appreciable dent in their own wealth, but it doesn't happen because of the political structure of our society. The Culture could easily be a society of near-infinite potential wealth which enforced scarcity the way legal & economic systems in our world enforce scarcity beyond what is naturally present now - from John Deere increasing the costs of agriculture to extract profit to the enforcement of intellectual property laws. Our society has more than enough wealth and industry to provide a home for every person, but we choose to organise our economy in a way that requires homelessness instead - I'm not making a moral judgement, just pointing out that that is in fact a decision our society makes and not just a natural fact of the universe. The Culture is politically organised to provide for the needs of its citizens, using the labour of those able to provide what is necessary. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is communism, it's not just a state of things that falls out of a coconut tree once you have enough production.

notahacker 2y ago

It's socialist in the sense that the Minds could just fuck off and have their own corner of the galaxy, but instead devote processor cycles and physical presence to ensuring helpless little oxygen-breathers have everything they need

matthewdgreen 2y ago
In one of the books Banks explains that the Minds were created with a bias to be helpful to humans, and that whenever they did try to create a “neutral” Mind that didn’t specifically care about this, the first thing it would do is fuck right off (to another plane of existence.)
- gpderetta 2y ago
  In fact in-universe the Culture is considered deviant as a whole by similarly advanced civilizations because, instead of focusing on collectively ascending as a civilization as it is proper, they meddle in the affairs of other civilizations.
- squigz 2y ago
  It's funny to call Subliming "fucking right off." Not inaccurate, but doesn't really have the same ring to it :P

abelsson 2y ago

Economic systems of the 1800s doesn't really make sense in a space based, post scarcity society - economics is after all, the allocation of scarce resources. But I would argue that the ultimate aim of the socialism as envisioned by Marx wasn't government control over the means of production (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") but rather "full communism" where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary, which in a way, does hint at a post scarcity society. So I can see the connection to the original Marx. Less so with the so-far practical implementations of socialism.

Bluestein 2y ago
> where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary, ... unnecessary through what? How? I think those are important details ... PS. Honestly asking. Interested in how you further interpret Marx ...
- abelsson 2y ago
  Unnecessary though productivity outpacing demand as far as I've understood it. In Marxism what they call "full communism" is envisioned to be the "final state of humanity" where productivity is described to be higher than the sum of needs and wants - everybody can help themselves to anything from the warehouses. Obviously very utopian, and I'm not sure there ever was any detailed analysis on how a society a would actually function in "full communism" - but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views. Early Marxists were much a bit more practical, more focused on critiquing the practices of their contemporary societies than envisioning the details of their utopia.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    > but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views Seems right up their alley ...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think there is a fundamental psychological and social engineering element to Marxism that many socialists gloss over. The end state is one of voluntary labor, contribution and exchange. human desire can outstrip any gains of productive capacity, and includes factors which can not simply be produced. Marx didn't envision everyone owning palaces and yachts post scarcity. He imagined people having enough to get by with moderate comfort for an 1800's standard of living. Similarly, in the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless. I think the truly radical part of Marxist end state communism is the idea that people will outgrow desire for "more" if more is an option. Without this, there will always be squabbling over who gets what. It is this human drive that draws socialism down into totalitarianism.

Bluestein 2y ago

In a way ownership itself becomes obsolete.- Not by polítical of sociological design, but through mere irrelevance, obsolescence.- Interesting ...

calpal 2y ago
[dead]

ein0p 2y ago

Not merely socialism, communism. I suspect this is why there isn’t a TV series for it yet.

arethuza 2y ago
I found the meme "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" recently and thought it was hilarious (pretty sure Banks would have liked it as well) it does rather capture quite a lot about the spirit of the Culture.

Ekaros 2y ago

Haven't gone too deep to Culture. But it does the whole post-scarcity thing much better than Start Trek does. When anyone can basically do anything they want well, apart from getting space ships... And it is all provided for by essence robots if I have understood right. Whole thing does coherently make sense with advanced enough technology. Where as in many other universes it just does not.

huppeldepup 2y ago

We have recently developed a system that eliminates scarcity for all digital media. The results is not an ideological re-alignment but a crowbar that locks down the rules of scarcity.

VagabundoP 2y ago
Now fast forward that by 10k years and what does it look like when time has worn down all those legal issues. The digital society is only two generations old at most.
Ekaros 2y ago
At the same time we have not yet eliminated scarcity in other areas. Thus some still need digital scarcity to solve their physical scarcity. If physical scarcity in general was solved issue there would be no need to lock down digital media.
- calpal 2y ago
  [dead]
- huppeldepup 2y ago
  My gut tells me that elimination of scarcity is going to be a piecewise proces, whereby each step is countered with a lock-in of scarcity rules.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    My gut tells me the probability we make it to post scarcity without a calamity (probably human manufactured) that ruins our ability to progress to post scarcity is pretty close to zero.

lucubratory 2y ago

>It's a place where everything is taken care of for you, not through the thoughtful allocation of resources for mutual benefit, but because it's trivially easy for a machine to just give you everything you ask for. It's trivially easy for the wealth of Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk to provide for the needs of tens of thousands of people without any appreciable dent in their own wealth, but it doesn't happen because of the political structure of our society. The Culture could easily be a society of near-infinite potential wealth which enforced scarcity the way legal & economic systems in our world enforce scarcity beyond what is naturally present now - from John Deere increasing the costs of agriculture to extract profit to the enforcement of intellectual property laws. Our society has more than enough wealth and industry to provide a home for every person, but we choose to organise our economy in a way that requires homelessness instead - I'm not making a moral judgement, just pointing out that that is in fact a decision our society makes and not just a natural fact of the universe. The Culture is politically organised to provide for the needs of its citizens, using the labour of those able to provide what is necessary. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is communism, it's not just a state of things that falls out of a coconut tree once you have enough production.